It is definitely in the fitness of things that while setting the record straight, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ajith vs State of Kerala & Anr in Crl.MC No. 1124 of 2020 (Crime No.69/2019 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad in S.C. No.921 of 2019 of Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:KER:21451 that was pronounced as recently as on March 13, 2025 has minced absolutely just no words whatsoever to hold unequivocally that the assumption that Indian women would not raise false allegations of sexual assault as it may affect her image in society is incorrect. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice A Badharudeen said clearly that over the last few years, there has been a rise in cases of women filing false complaints just to settle scores with men. This is definitely a matter of grave concern because many times we see that men are made to suffer jail term for no fault of theirs and only because women levels false allegations of rape!
It is in this backdrop that the Bench also unambiguously held that, therefore, this assumption that women are unlikely to file false cases must not be applied to every case without analyzing the allegations on a case-by-case basis. The Bench thus allowed the petition and quashed the rape allegations against the petitioner. The Kerala High Court thus very rightly concluded that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant-woman was purely consensual in nature.
It is high time and lawmakers must now definitely amend the rape laws and if a woman has sex with a men without force being used then it should not be termed rape! Why should a woman get ready to have sex with men without marriage and only on promise of marriage surrender her body and later cry rape? This definitely merits prompt changes so that a woman whether married or unmarried stops having sex with men on any pretext whatsoever without marriage being consummated so that it acts as a strong deterrent to woman not to have sex with any men on any pretext whatsoever and also go a long way in checking misuse of rape laws against men by woman who for years has sex with men enjoying and later suddenly cry rape waking up after a long time and forwards promise of marriage as most favourite excuse for surrendering her body to him!
It merits just no reiteration that the earlier this is done, the better it shall be! This will definitely usher in morality and women will think thousands times before having sex with men without consummation of marriage and will definitely go a long way in nipping in the bud the most regressive practice of women surrendering her body on pretext of marriage for years and later terming it as rape! It definitely brooks no more delay anymore longer now!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice A Badharudeen sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash all further proceedings in S.C. No.921/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam, arose out of Crime No.69 of 2019 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that, “In a nutshell, the prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner herein, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant, with promise of marriage, subjected the defacto complainant to rape in between the period from 30.05.2014 to 20.04.2019, on the promise of marriage. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.”
As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 7 stating that, “In the instant case, FIR was registered based on the FIS given by the victim on 20.04.2019 alleging that the petitioner, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant on the promise of marriage, subjected her to rape in between the period from 30.05.2014 to 20.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner retracted from the marriage.”
As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 8 observing that, “In the Final Report, the allegation is that, the petitioner, who made acquaintance with the defacto complainant during the year 2011, promised to marry her. Thereafter, on 30.05.2014, on the said promise she was taken to the terrace of a nearby house of the residence of the petitioner in Koppam, where there were no residents and she was subjected to rape between 10.30 and 12.00 p.m., without her consent.”
Simply put, the Bench points out in para 9 that, “In this matter, the delay in lodging the FIR in between 2014 and 2019 is the main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the proceedings. In fact, as per Annexure-VIII produced by the petitioner, it could be gathered that as on 05.11.2016, the defacto complainant lodged complaint before the Women Protection Officer, Women Cell, Palakkad against the petitioner. In the said complaint, the defacto complainant and the petitioner were brought to the Police Station. The endorsement made in the complaint register on 07.11.2016 is that since the defacto complainant insisted for registration of a crime, on the above facts, the defacto complainant was referred to Kongad Police Station.”
Further, the Bench then reveals in para 10 that, “As per Annexure-IX information furnished by the Public Information Officer, Inspector of Police, Kongad Police Station, it has been informed that the defacto complainant herein not lodged any complaint before the Kongad Police Station, in tune with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, the endorsement in the complaint register dated 17.11.2016 was to refer the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant before the Vanitha Cell to Kongad Police Station, and therefore there is no necessity for the defacto complainant to lodge a fresh complaint in this regard. However, it is discernible from the 164 statement given by the defacto complainant that, though during 2016 complaint was lodged, since the petitioner assured marriage after completion of M.Phil course by the defacto complainant, the said complaint was not proceeded further.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 11 that, “As per the statement given by the defacto complainant, it was stated that, there was no contact in between the defacto complainant and the petitioner for the last three years. The same would show that the defacto complainant, even had no contact with the petitioner for a lengthy period of three years and despite that she did not file any complaint or lodge FIR raising the allegations. That apart, as per the FIR the allegation is that, the defacto complainant was subjected to rape by the petitioner in between the period from 30.05.2014 to 20.04.2019 and when the Final Report has been filed, the allegation is confined to a single day’s occurrence on 30.05.2014.”
It is worth noting that the Bench then hastens to add in para 12 noting that, “In the decision of the Apex Court reported in [2010 (2) SCC 9 : AIR 2010 SC 1] Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, it has been observed that, it is also a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked by the society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward looking as the western countries are.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 13 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “In cases where sexual assault has been alleged, the said concept has been carried for the past so many years, on the premise that, in Indian society, any girl would not make any allegation of sexual assault or any other mode of misconduct against a person, as the same would prejudice the right of the girl or woman, as the case may be. However, in recent years, this concept seems to be diluted and in less percentage of the complaints in this line, wherein allegation of rape, sexual molestation and other misconduct projected are without any iota of truth, so as to settle a score and also to compel the persons against whom allegations are made to heed the illegal demands of the complainants. Therefore, this concept could not be followed blindly without analyzing the truth of the allegations in case to case basis. The allegation herein also to be evaluated in the said scenario.”
Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 14 holding that, “In the instant case, it is true that, there was consensual relationship in between the defacto complainant and the petitioner and as per the Final Report, an occurrence on 30.05.2014, in continuation of the said relationship, on the promise of marriage has been alleged. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the first occurrence as alleged was on 30.05.2014, the crime was registered only on 20.04.2019. Though, as on 05.11.2016, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Women Cell, Palakkad, according to the defacto complainant, she did not prosecute the said complaint because of assurance given by the petitioner again to marry her. In fact, when there is a complaint as to commission of rape on the promise of marriage, again withdrawing from prosecution awaiting marriage, that too for a period of three years, without having any contact in between the parties is not digestible to prudence.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding aptly in para 15 that, “Therefore, the overt acts alleged against the petitioner herein is to be held as one with consent and it could not be held that the consent is vitiated by misconception of facts and the lethargy on the part of the defacto complainant would fortify the same. Therefore, the relationship between the defacto complainant and petitioner was purely consensual in nature. In such view of the matter, no materials made out in this matter to attract the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, where the defacto complainant filed affidavit that she has no grievance in the matter of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the prayer for quashment.
Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and all further proceedings in S.C. No.921/2019 on the files of the Assistant Sessions Court, Ottappalam, arose out of Crime No.69 of 2019 of Koppam Police Station, Palakkad, as against the accused/petitioner stand quashed.”
Author Bio
