Kerala High Court: In a criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, seeking quashment of charge sheet and all further proceedings against a priest of St.Johns Baptist Church, accused of raping a woman on pretext of marriage, A. Badharudeen, J. refused to quash criminal proceedings as the allegations warranted a trial, and the fact that the complainant previously sought to quash the proceedings did not justify closing the case.
In this matter it is alleged that the accused has committed offences punishable under Section 376, 376(2)(n) and 342 of the Penal Code (‘IPC’).
The accused submitted that the complainant herself posted a public notice/message on social media stating that the entire rumours and defamatory messages associating her, and the accused shared through social media was fake and there was no truth in it. That apart, FIR was registered after a delay of 3 ½ months.
The complainant stated that her previous marriage was not legal marriage, as she married outside her community. Thus, it was not marriage as per religious custom. Since she married a man from other caste, holy sacrament and baptism pertaining to her and her child were discussed with the accused. During this discussion, the accused collected her telephone number. One day, he requested her to reach the Church and directed her to go inside the office room. While she was sitting outside the office room, he took her to the nearby bedroom and locked the room. Then she was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse. At the time of sexual intercourse, the accused assured that he would look after the affairs of the complainant, and he would marry her. He also stated that he was ready to give up the Priesthood for the said purpose. She believed the assurance but later the accused deviated from the marriage.
The Court noted that the complainant, who was legally eligible to solemnise marriage as there was no legal marriage at any point of time, was given promise of marriage by the accused after expressing his readiness to give up his Priesthood, after subjecting her to repeated sexual intercourse promising to marry her, retracted from the marriage. Since the relationship continued on the promise of marriage, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. Thus, prima facie, allegations are made out warranting trial of the matter and in such a case, there is no reason to close the proceedings merely on the fact that earlier the complainant filed a petition to quash the crime.
The Court found that the complainant, who was legally eligible to marry, had been promised marriage by the accused, who was willing to abandon his Priesthood. The relationship involved repeated sexual intercourse based on this promise, but the accused later retracted. The Court determined that there was no undue delay in filing the FIR, as the relationship was predicated on the promise of marriage. Further, the Court said that the allegations warranted a trial, and the fact that the complainant previously sought to quash the proceedings did not justify closing the case.
Thus, the Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused.
[FR. Jose Mathai Myladath v State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 5618, decided on 07-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: P.T.Sheejish, P.Sreeram, Harikiran, A. Abdul Rahman (A-1917), Parvathy S. Manoj, Amrita Safal M., Yoosuf Safwan T. Ajmal
For Respondent: Public prosecutor Sri M P Prasanth
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 482 CrPC, 1973