MANU.C.MANIKANTAN, C.P. MANIKANTAN, and VISWAMMA MANIKANDAN v. STATE OF KERALA

Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 1 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26186 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1946 ``` ``` CRL.MC NO. 7768 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:`** ``` 1MANU.C.MANIKANTAN AGED 26 YEARS S/O.C.P. MANIKANTAN, CHITTEDAM, KODUPPUNNA, KODUPPUNA P.O, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C.P. MANIKANTAN, S/O. PAAPPAN, AGED 54 YEARS, CHITTEDAM, KODUPPUNNA, KODUPPUNA PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689595 ``` ``` 2C.P. MANIKANTAN AGED 54 YEARS S/O. PAAPPAN, CHITTEDAM, KODUPPUNNA, KODUPPUNA PO,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689595 ``` ``` 3VISWAMMA MANIKANDAN AGED 55 YEARS W/O MANIKANTAN, CHITTEDAM, KODUPPUNNA, KODUPPUNA PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689595 ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.R.GOPU URMILA.M.G ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 2 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670301`** - **`3 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX`** ``` BY ADVS. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AADIL NAZARUDEEN AKSHAY.R ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 3 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** ## **O R D E R** The petitioners herein are accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.867/2023 of Kannapuram Police Station, Kannur. The offences alleged are under Section 376, 376(2)(l), 376(2) (n), 417 and 420, read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the crime and all further proceedings therein, including the Final Report, on the premise that the matter has been settled by and between the petitioners and the defacto complainant/3[rd] respondent. It is also the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the Final Report, taken on its face value, will not constitute the offences alleged. **2.** Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. **3.** Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an intimate love affair between the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent for a period of more than two years Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 4 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** and that their marriage was about to be solemnized, at which point of time, there arose a difference of opinion between the families. The physical relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the 3rd respondent was nothing, but consensual. It is a misconception to allege that the consent was vitiated by a promise to marry extended by the 1[st] petitioner. Such contention is squarely in the teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another**_ [(2019) 9 SCC 608]. Above all, learned counsel would submit that the issue has been settled by and between the petitioners and the 3[rd] respondent in the mediation conducted pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, when the petitioners sought pre-arrest bail. A sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs was given by the petitioners to the 3[rd] respondent, as per the terms of the mediation settlement. An affidavit has been sworn to by the 3[rd] respondent indicating the factum of settlement and also acknowledging the receipt of the sum above referred. Moreover, a statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the direction of this Court, which would Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 5 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** also vouch the factum of settlement and also receipt of the money. In such circumstances, no profitable purpose is going to be served by continuing the prosecution, except an abuse of process of Court, is the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. On such premise, petitioners seek, the crime and all further proceedings thereto to be quashed. **4.** Learned Public Prosecutor had not opposed, as such, the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The factum of settlement was also endorsed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor would, however, point out that, it is a matter for deliberation as to whether an offence under Section 376 can be quashed on the settlement between the parties. **5.** Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent would completely support the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, besides specifically acknowledging the factum of settlement between the parties. Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 6 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** **6.** Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court will first have a look at the First Information Statement given by the 3[rd ] respondent. The 3[rd] respondent is physically challenged, who according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is suffering from cerebral palsy. A perusal of the F.I.S in its entirety would indicate that there was an intimate relationship between the 1[st ] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent during the period from 2018 to 2023; that the matter was known to the family of both; that the engagement was about to take place on 30.07.2023; that there were discussions between the family as regards the solemnization of the marriage; and that the same could not proceed on account of certain financial concerns of the parents of the 1[st] petitioner (petitioners 2 and 3 herein). The F.I.S would also indicate that there were physical relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent on several occasions, twice of which was at the home of the 3[rd] respondent. It is true that the F.I.S refers to an allegation that the sexual relationship was based on the compulsion made by the 1[st] petitioner. However, Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 7 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** F.I.S would also refer to the fact that the 1[st] petitioner wanted to ascertain whether the 3[rd] respondent can enter into a physical relationship, because of her disability. The F.I.S would also reveal that money has been advanced by the 3[rd] respondent to the 1[st] petitioner on several occasions, including for the purpose of enabling the 1[st] petitioner to go to Mali in the pursuit of his employment. It is thereafter that there was a change in the attitude of the 1[st] petitioner, insofar as his relationship with the 3[rd] respondent is concerned, as alleged in the F.I.S. It is the contention that the 1[st] petitioner informed the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant five days prior to the engagement that he is not coming from Mali. The ring exchange was fixed at the Adwaithasramam, Aluva, for which, the 3[rd] respondent, her parents and the parents of the 1[st] petitioner reached there. However, on the question of dowry, there was some difference of opinion and it was decided to cancel the marriage proposal. **7.** This Court endorses the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts are squarely in Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 8 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** the teeth of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Pramod Suryabhan Pawar**_ (supra). In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court distinguished between two different situations of promise to marry. The first is a case, where the promise is false at the very inception, in the sense that the intention of the maker of the promise itself was not to abide by it, but to deceive a women, so as to convince her to engage in sexual relationship. The second is a case, where a promise to marry was breached later, due to other circumstances. In order to establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. In such circumstances, the consent of a women, for the purpose of Section 375, will stand vitiated on the ground of misconception of fact. In such situation, misconception was the basis for her in choosing to engage in the objectionable act. The Supreme Court enunciated two propositions in this regard. The first is that, the promise to marry must be a false promise, given in bad faith, with no intention of adherence to the same, at the time when it was given. The second one is that the false Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 9 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** promise itself must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the women’s decision to engage in the sexual act. The case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also one of intense and intimate relationship between the accused and the victim for the period from 1998 to 2004; that they used to travel great distances and had engaged in sexual intercourse regularly over a period of five years, that they visited hospital jointly to check whether the complainant was pregnant; and that, they fall apart when the accused expressed his reservation in marrying the complainant. The High Court refused to quash the crime involving the offence under Section 376. However, the Supreme Court, in that case held that the offence under Section 375 of the Penal Code is not attracted, even if the facts set out in the complainant’s statements are accepted in toto. **8.** The next decision to be looked into is _**Dr.Dhruvaram Mulidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and others**_ [AIR 2019 SC 327]. In that case also, the accused and the victim were living together sometime at the house of the victim; and Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 10 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** sometime at the residence of the accused. They were in a relationship with each other for quite sometime and enjoyed each other's company. A complaint was lodged when the victim came to know that the appellant had married another woman. It was found that she had taken a conscious decision after active mind application to take part in the sexual activity; not a case of passive submission due to any psychological pressure or due to any misconception of fact. In that case also, the Supreme Court chose to quash the crime and all further proceedings. **9.** A case on more or less similar facts was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Shivashankar @ Shiva v. State of Karnataka and another**_ [(2019) 18 SCC 204]. That was also a case of rape on the basis of pretended love and false promise to marry. The accused and the victim lived together for about eight years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took stock of the fact that the accused and the victim lived together like a married couple, even according to the complainant and therefore, it is difficult to sustain the charges levelled Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 11 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26186 ``` against the accused. The Supreme Court specifically held that it is difficult to hold a sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship, which has continued for eight years, as rape, especially in the face of the complainant’s own allegation that they lived together as man and wife. **10.** Gauged in the touch stone of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions afore referred, this Court cannot, but quash the crime and all further proceedings therefrom, in the instant facts as well. As already indicated, there was a relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent during the period from 2018 to 2023; that the relationship was intimate and intense; that there were physical relationship between the 1[st] petitioner and the victim on several occasions; and that the allegation of rape erupts for the first time when the marriage contemplated could not proceed allegedly due to want of dowry. It cannot be found that the consent for physical relationship was vitiated by any misconception of fact, in the context of Section 90 of the Penal Code. Nor Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 12 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** could be it found that the sexual intercourse between the 1[st] petitioner and the victim would fall within any of the parameters contemplated in ‘firstly’ to ‘seventhly’ under Section 375 of the Penal Code. It can only be seen that the facts and circumstances only persuade me to find that there was conscious decision taken by the 3[rd ] respondent/victim to have physical relationship with the 1[st] petitioner, uninfluenced by any misconception of fact. There is nothing to indicate that the alleged promise to marry extended by the 1[st] petitioner/1[st] accused was with an intention to deceive the victim and to extract her consent for the purpose of physical relationship. As held in _**Pramod Suryabhan Pawar**_ (supra), the promise extended is not shown to be a false promise, given in bad faith, with no intention of adhering to the same at the time when it was given. It also cannot be held that the false promise itself was of any immediate relevance or having a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. The promise to marry, if any, given by the 1[st] petitioner to the 3[rd] respondent could not be kept due to subsequent supervening Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 13 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** circumstances, especially the interference of the parents of the 1[st] petitioner. There was no intention to deceive at the very inception of giving the promise, with an eye fixed on extracting a consent for the purpose of physical relationship. Unless and until the consent is vitiated on that count, the sexual relationship cannot be treated in the law as a rape, so as to attract the offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code. If there is no lack of consent as found above, the question of attracting an offence under Section 376(2)(l) or, for that matter, Section 376(2)(n) also does not arise. **11.** Besides what has been discussed above, this Court also take stock of the fact that the matter has been settled in mediation and the amount contemplated in the mediation agreement has been given to the 3[rd] respondent, the receipt of which, the 3[rd] respondent has acknowledged in the affidavit, as also, in the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. The factum of settlement is vouched by the said affidavit and the statement. Learned counsel for Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 14 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** the 3[rd] respondent fully supports the petitioners' claim for quashment of the crime and all further proceedings thereto. **12.** In the light of the above referred facts, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary parameters, as culled out in _**Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab**_ [(2014) 6 SCC 466], _**Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab**_ [(2008) 4 SCC 582] and _**Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another**_ [(2012) 10 SCC 303], are fully satisfied. This court is convinced that further proceedings against the petitioners will be a futile exercise, inasmuch as the disputes have already been settled. There is little possibility of any conviction in the crime. _Dehors_ the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, if they are compelled to face the criminal proceedings, the same, in the estimation of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of Court. The quashment sought for would secure the ends of justice. **13.** In the circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-I F.I.R in Crime No.867/2023, Annexure-II Final Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 15 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:26186 ``` Report, and all further proceedings in C.P.No.18/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kannur, are hereby quashed. Sd/- **C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE** ww Crl.M.C.No.7768 of 2024 - 16 - **==> picture [57 x 57] intentionally omitted <==** ## **`2025:KER:26186`** ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7768/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ## **`ANNEXURE-I`** ``` THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.867/2023 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION DATED 13.12.2023. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE-II`** ``` THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, KANNUR DATED 29.02.2024. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-IIITHE TRUE COPY OF WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.10.2023. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-IVTHE TRUE COPY OF WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2023. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE-V`** ``` THE TRUE COPY OF WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN 1ST PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2023. ``` ## **`ANNEXURE-VI`** ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION REPORT IN B.A.NO.2003/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14.08.2024. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-VII ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.08.2024. ```