Talk to a lawyer @499

News

Allegations of rape on false promises will not stand if the woman knew that the man was married and continued to have sexual relations with him - Kerala HC.

Feature Image for the blog - Allegations of rape on false promises will not stand if the woman knew that the man was married and continued to have sexual relations with him - Kerala HC.

CaseSreekanth Sasidharan v State of Kerala & Anr

Court: Justice Kauser Edaggapath of Kerala High Court (HC)

The HC recently noted that an allegation of rape on false promises would not stand if the woman knew the man was already married and continued sexual relations with him. 

The court cited several precedents to demonstrate that consensual sex between a man and a woman will not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC if the man retracts his promise to marry the woman unless it is established that he obtained consent for such sexual act by making a false promise of marriage, with no intention of complying with it, and that the promise was false to his knowledge.

The court was hearing a plea moved by a man to quash the case registered against him for the alleged commission of offences of rape and cheating under the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that over nine years, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the complainant in several places in India and abroad on the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The petitioner further dishonestly persuaded the complainant to deliver ₹15 lakhs and five sovereigns of gold.

In his defence, attorney Lal K Joseph argued that the statement made by the complainant and the materials collected during the investigation did not constitute a crime or made no case against the petitioner, even if taken at face value.

During the hearing, the court noted that the complainant had known the petitioner since 2010 and had learned that he was married five to six years ago. She was still in a sexual relationship with him till 2019. According to her, the petitioner told her about divorcing to discover later he was in another relationship.

The HC quashed the FIR while stating that the complainant's complaint would be nullified as she continued to be in a relationship with the petitioner, knowing about his marriage from 2013 onwards.