Marriage in Pursuit Of 'Greener Pasture' Doesn’t Convert Prior Consensual Sex Into Rape: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings In False-Promise-To-Marry Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice G. Girish held that the criminal proceedings arising from the allegations of rape and deceitful marriage rituals could not be sustained, concluding that the relationship between the parties was consensual and lacked the elements required to constitute rape under the Penal Code. The Court observed that a man entering into another marriage in pursuit of “greener pasture” does not retroactively convert prior consensual intimacy into rape, nor does such later conduct establish that earlier consent was induced through a false assurance of marriage. Noting that prosecution for certain marriage-related offences requires a valid complaint from an aggrieved person, the Court directed that the pending proceedings be quashed.
The matter arose from allegations made by the complainant, a widow with two children, who stated that her acquaintance with the accused began in 2009 when he contacted her by phone and offered financial assistance. She alleged that he later visited her workplace and engaged in sexual relations with her after leading her to believe that he intended to marry her. Following her husband’s death in 2013, the accused allegedly stayed with her and continued the relationship while working elsewhere, visiting her during leave. She stated that, at one point, he conducted a symbolic act resembling a marriage ritual by tying a knot in her chain in front of a lamp and candle.
According to the complaint, the relationship continued for several years until she learned that the accused had married another woman. She claimed that despite this, he told her he still considered her his wife. The complainant asserted that the relationship ended when he refused further contact and asked her not to approach him. She stated that her attempts to meet him later were unsuccessful and that he declined to acknowledge the relationship.
The police registered offences under Sections 493, 496, and 376 of the Indian Penal Code based on her statement and the materials collected during investigation.
The Court first examined the maintainability of the offences relating to deceitful marriage rituals included in the police report. It recorded that “as regards the offences under Sections 493 and 496 I.P.C incorporated in the final report, it has to be stated that a prosecution for the commission of the aforesaid offences is, prima facie, not maintainable since under Section 198 Cr.P.C, the court concerned is proscribed from taking cognizance of the said offences except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face trial for the offences under Sections 493 and 496 I.P.C in a final report filed by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.”
Turning to the allegation of rape, the Court analysed the nature of the relationship, the chronology of interactions, and the complainant’s own statements. It observed that the materials indicated a long period of voluntary cohabitation and a relationship continuing even after the complainant became aware of the accused’s subsequent marriage. The Court stated that the factual background did not support an inference that consent was induced by deception at the inception of the relationship.
The Court then addressed the complaint that the accused’s later conduct converted earlier consensual intimacy into rape. It recorded that “the fact that the accused went in search of greener pasture for giving vent to his promiscuous sexual urge, and started a new relationship in the nature of marriage with another lady, by itself will not bring his prior relationship with the victim within the meaning of rape. Hence the proceedings initiated against the accused in connection with the commission of rape, is primafacie unsustainable.”
As to the legal requirement for establishing lack of consent, the Court relied on precedents governing false promises of marriage. It stated that “for bringing home the offence of rape, it has to be established that from the very beginning the accused was not having any intention at all to marry the prosecutrix and that the offer of marriage was made as a ploy to make her surrender to him in order to satiate his carnal desires.”
The Court stated that “the final report and accompanying records relied on by the prosecution are not capable of bringing out the essential requirements for the prosecution of the petitioner in connection with the commission of the offences alleged against him.” It held that “the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him, deserves to be allowed.”
The Court directed that “the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in S.C No.802/2019 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IX, Thiruvananthapuram, which arose out of Crime No.3053/2017 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, are hereby quashed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Adv. Shri. B. Mohanlal
For the Respondents: Adv. Shri. Ajith Krishnan for R2; Smt. Seena C., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Pradeep v. Station House Officer, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram City & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:87073
Case Number: Crl.M.C No.5348/2019
Bench: Justice G. Girish
