RAHUL M. R. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been filed under Sec. 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act'). Crl.A. No.1685/2025 is filed by the 1st accused in Crime No.482/2025 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam District, and Crl.A. No.1690/2025 is filed by the 2nd accused in the same crime. Crime No.482/2025 of Maradu Police Station has been registered alleging commission of offences under Ss. 376(2)(n) & 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') and S.3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. By an order dtd. 27/8/2025 in Crl.M.P 1602/2025 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Ernakulam, an application filed by both the accused jointly for anticipatory bail was dismissed by that court. The appellant in Crl.A.No.1685/2025 is hereinafter referred to as the 1st accused, and the appellant in Crl.A. No.1690/2025 is hereinafter referred to as the 2nd accused.

(2.) The allegations leading to registration of Crime No.482/2025 of Maradu Police Station (in brief) are that the 1st accused in Crl.A.1685/2025 had established a relationship with the de facto complainant/victim after promising to marry her. It is alleged that the 1st accused had initially forced the de facto complainant to enter into sexual relationships with him, despite the objection of the de facto complainant, and thereafter, continued to maintain his relationship with her. After living with her for some time in a rented house, he withdrew from the promise of marriage and thereby committed the offences alleged against him. The 2nd accused is the brother of the 1st accused. The allegation against him is that he had threatened the de facto complainant and had warned her against maintaining a relationship with the 1st accused. It is alleged that the 2nd accused had threatened the de facto complainant by stating that he was not causing any harm to her, only because she is the mother of a minor child.

(3.) Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused, has taken me through the First Information Statement given by the de facto complainant/victim. He submits that even if all the allegations in the First Information Statement are accepted as true, no offence has been committed by the 1st accused. He refers to the recent judgment of this Court in Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala, 2025 KHC OnLine 943, to contend that where a relationship which lasted for a long time subsequently breaks down on account of one reason or the other, the same cannot be a ground to raise an allegation of rape on the false promise of marriage. The learned counsel also submits that the Supreme Court in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2024) 11 SCC 398 (which has been relied on by this Court in Hiran Das Murali), observed that it is a worrying trend that consensual relationships that lasted over a period of time are subsequently characterised as rape. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jothiragawan v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 628 to contend that where the alleged victim had willingly engaged in sexual relationships on more than one occasion even if it is alleged that the first instance of sexual intercourse was against her will, the allegation of the accused having committed rape cannot be sustained.