Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition to Quash Rape Case Proceedings: Matters of Consent and Misconception of Fact Must Be Determined at Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Consent or Misconception of Fact? Quashment of Proceedings Requires Trial,” says Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by Fawas seeking to quash the proceedings against him in a rape case. The Court emphasized that determining whether the sexual relationship was consensual or based on a misconception of fact requires a full trial. Justice A. Badharudeen, delivering the judgment, referred to several Supreme Court precedents to underscore the necessity of evaluating evidence to establish the nature of consent.

The petitioner, Fawas, aged 36, is accused of kidnapping and committing rape on the promise of marriage, as per the prosecution case. The incident, which occurred on August 25, 2021, led to the registration of a crime under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Vazhakkad police station, Malappuram. The de facto complainant alleged that Fawas retracted his promise of marriage after engaging in sexual intercourse with her.

The Court examined the legal principles surrounding consent and the vitiation of consent due to a misconception of fact. Referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2019 KHC 6829], Justice Badharudeen noted, “There is a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of a promise made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.”

The judgment also relied on Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 (2) KHC 314], where the Supreme Court articulated that “consent” under Section 375 IPC must involve active and reasoned deliberation. For consent to be vitiated by a misconception of fact, it must be proven that the promise of marriage was made in bad faith with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.

Justice Badharudeen scrutinized the First Information Statement (FIS) provided by the complainant. According to the FIS, the complainant met Fawas through Facebook in August 2020. The relationship, which began with the promise of marriage, allegedly culminated in sexual intercourse under the assurance of marriage. However, the complainant later discovered that Fawas had married another woman on May 15, 2022.

The Court observed that whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or based on a misconception of fact due to a false promise of marriage are matters that necessitate a trial. “The determination of consent or misconception of fact cannot be conclusively made without evaluating the evidence presented during the trial,” the Court noted.

Justice Badharudeen stated, “In such a case, quashment of the proceedings without adducing evidence could not be considered. Therefore, the prayer for quashment cannot be considered, and as such, the matter shall go for trial.”

The dismissal of Fawas’s petition by the Kerala High Court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to thoroughly investigating allegations of sexual assault, particularly when issues of consent and deception are involved. This judgment reinforces the principle that such matters should be determined through a detailed examination of evidence during a trial, thereby ensuring that justice is served based on factual determinations.

 

Date of Decision: July 10, 2024

FAWAS VS STATE OF KERALA

Similar News