Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute

“It is too hard to believe that an educated and employed woman would remain silent about sexual abuse for over three years while continuing financial transactions and close personal rapport with the accused,” In a significant judgment Kerala High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quashed the rape and cybercrime charges pending against the petitioner, Tom Joseph, in S.C. No.108/2019. Justice G. Girish held that the allegations of repeated sexual assault and mental abuse were not only inherently improbable, but also appeared to be a retaliatory measure, filed after the petitioner had initiated civil and criminal proceedings against the complainant regarding financial disputes.

“Delay of over four years in filing FIR and continued cordiality with accused renders rape claim unbelievable”

The FIR in Crime No. 1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station was registered on 23 July 2018, with the complainant alleging that the petitioner had subjected her to sexual abuse and coercion between February 2011 and May 2014. The complaint alleged that the petitioner had exploited her under threats to publish compromising photos and had continued to harass her to extort money.

However, the Court noted glaring contradictions in this version. The complainant, a bank employee, had not only maintained a friendly relationship with the petitioner till 2017, but had also given sworn testimony in his favour in a separate case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Erattupetta, stating on 26 July 2017 that “her family and the petitioner’s family are very close” and that she had known him for over 8 years.

This, the Court held, “revolts against her current allegation of being repeatedly raped and mentally tortured by the same person.”

“Sequence of events shows clear motive — FIR followed petitioner’s suit and complaints against complainant”

The Court traced the timeline of events to demonstrate how the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to multiple legal actions initiated by the petitioner:

• 19.03.2018 – Petitioner filed a civil suit (O.S. No. 17/2018) seeking recovery of amounts given to the complainant under an unfulfilled property sale agreement.

• 05.07.2018 – Petitioner filed a criminal complaint alleging insurance fraud committed by the complainant in her capacity as a bank employee.

• 23.07.2018 – The complainant filed the FIR alleging rape and harassment by the petitioner.

Justice Girish concluded that the timing of the FIR, shortly after the civil suit and criminal complaint, “can only show that there is substance in the allegation of the petitioner that a false complaint has been lodged against him as a counterblast to the legal action initiated by him against the de facto complainant.”

“Unbelievable that such long coercion went unreported by an educated woman — Absence of disclosure casts serious doubt”

The Court questioned the plausibility of the complainant’s silence for more than three years while allegedly enduring sexual abuse, including multiple forced physical encounters both at her residence and that of the petitioner. The Judge remarked:

“Even otherwise, it cannot be expected that an educated and employed lady like the de facto complainant would have fallen prey to the coercion and criminal intimidation of the petitioner for a period of about three years, and subjected herself to the sexual abuse of the petitioner.”

The Court cited the long delay in reporting, the absence of complaints during the alleged abuse period, and continued financial and social transactions with the accused as factors that cumulatively undermined the credibility of the accusation.

“Abuse of criminal process — FIR filed with mala fide intent to harass”

The petitioner had relied on various documents — including the agreement for sale, bank transaction records, the civil suit plaint, complaints to the Insurance Ombudsman, and the complainant’s own sworn statement in 2017 — to show that there was a long-standing monetary dispute and no indication of any sexual misconduct until much later.

Justice Girish found that these documents collectively established that “the petitioner and the de facto complainant became familiar to each other in the year 2010” through a property transaction, and the dispute arose only when the deal failed and refund issues emerged.

“Having regard to the financial and property transactions between the petitioner and the de facto complainant from 2010 onwards as revealed from the case records, it is too hard to believe the version of the de facto complainant,” the Court held.

Applying the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court concluded that the criminal proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law and did not disclose any prima facie case warranting trial.

Conclusion: Proceedings Quashed — Allegations Held Implausible and Maliciously Motivated

Allowing the Crl.MC, the High Court held:

“The prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings against him, deserves to be allowed... the allegations levelled against the petitioner [are] totally unbelievable.”

Accordingly, all proceedings against Tom Joseph in S.C No. 108/2019, arising from Crime No. 1142/2018 of Erattupetta Police Station, were quashed by the Kerala High Court.

This ruling reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon in private disputes and that courts must vigilantly guard against motivated prosecutions, especially where the factual background undermines the very foundation of the accusation.

Date of Decision: 01 December 2025