The Kerala High Court has clarified that a man entering a new marriage “in search of greener pastures” does not automatically render his earlier consensual sexual relationship with another woman as “rape” under the Indian Penal Code.

Justice G. Girish held that such conduct, though morally questionable, does not retrospectively transform a previously consensual relationship into one based on a false promise of marriage.

The Court observed:

“The fact that the accused went in search of greener pastures to satisfy his promiscuous sexual urge and entered into a new relationship resembling marriage cannot, by itself, convert his earlier consensual relationship with the victim into rape. Hence, the proceedings for the offence of rape appear prima facie unsustainable.”

The petitioner faced charges under Sections 493, 496, and 376 IPC—offences linked to deceitful cohabitation, fraudulent marriage ceremonies, and rape. He sought to quash the criminal proceedings.

As per the prosecution, the accused became acquainted with the de facto complainant in 2009, when she was a married woman with two children. He allegedly assured her of marriage and began a sexual relationship at her workplace. In 2013, after her husband passed away, the accused lived with her and continued the relationship.

Even after securing employment in Wayanad, he allegedly visited her often and maintained sexual relations. When she pressed for marriage, he tied a knot on her gold chain before a lamp and candle, making her believe that they were married.

In 2014, the complainant discovered that he had married another woman. The accused, however, insisted that he still considered the complainant his “only wife.” Their relationship finally broke down in 2017, when he refused to continue.

Court’s Findings on Section 376 IPC

The High Court concluded that the relationship was clearly consensual, noting that it began while the complainant was still legally married, undermining the allegation that she consented solely due to a promise of future marriage.

Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), Deepak Gulati (2013), Dhruvaram Sonar, and Naim Ahamed, the Court reiterated that consent given in a romantic relationship, even with the hope of marriage, is not automatically vitiated.

It emphasized:

For the offence of rape to stand, it must be shown that the accused never intended to marry from the outset and used a false promise only as a ploy for sexual exploitation.

The Court held that no such intention was evident in the present case and that the complainant’s consent was not obtained by deception.

Offences Under Sections 493 & 496 IPC

Regarding the charges related to deceitful or fraudulent marriage ceremonies, the Court pointed to Section 198 CrPC, which mandates that courts can take cognizance of such offences only upon a complaint by the “person aggrieved”.

Since the police filed the final report without a formal complaint from the aggrieved party, the Court found the prosecution to be legally unsustainable.

It observed:

“Prosecution for offences under Sections 493 and 496 IPC is prima facie not maintainable, as cognizance is barred unless initiated through a complaint by the person aggrieved under Section 198 CrPC.”

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused.

Case Title: Pradeep v. Station House Officer & Anr.
Case No.: Crl.M.C. No. 5348 of 2019