Kerala High Court
Arun V. Murali @ Kannan vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2025
2025:KER:58337
Crl.M.C No.8375/2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 8375 OF 2023
CRIME NO.357/2022 OF Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.251 OF 2023
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
PATHANAMTHITTA / III ADDITIONAL MACT
PETITIONER:
ARUN V. MURALI @ KANNAN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O MURALIDHARAN ACHARI, VIJAYA BHAVAN VEEDU,
KOLLAM MUKKU, KALANJOOR P.O, MURI & VILLAGE,
KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN -
689502
BY ADVS.
SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.M.KIRANLAL
SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR
SMT.SAILAKSHMI MENON
SHRI.ABHISHEK JOHNSON
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOODAL POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
PIN - 689693
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV SHRI.ANSU VARGHESE
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUDHEER G., PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58337
Crl.M.C No.8375/2023
2
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in S.C No.251/2023 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The prosecution case is that, from 05.02.2022 to 13.03.2022, on various dates, the petitioner indulged in sexual relationship with the defacto complainant under the promise of marriage. It is stated that the engagement ceremony of the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant were already over, and that both the parties were under the expectation that the marriage would be solemnised in accordance with the decision taken by their families. However, there arose issues between the parties; and the petitioner and his family allegedly retracted from their commitment to have the marriage of the petitioner done with the de facto complainant.
2025:KER:58337 Crl.M.C No.8375/2023 3 It is upon the aforesaid allegations that the defacto complainant approached the Koodal Police, with a complaint on 23.05.2022 leading to the registration of this crime. After the completion of the investigation, the Inspector of Police, Koodal, filed the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner.
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent, and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated that the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was purely consensual, and hence the offence of rape is not attracted. Furthermore, the petitioner would contend that the matter has been amicably settled with the defacto complainant, and that she has filed an affidavit stating her willingness to terminate the prosecution proceedings against the petitioner.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
2025:KER:58337 Crl.M.C No.8375/2023 4
5. In the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant before this Court, she has stated in unequivocal terms that her relationship with the petitioner was consensual. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner and the defacto complainant resided together at various hotel rooms and houses after the engagement ceremony of their marriage. Obviously, the above facts would reveal that the sexual relationship was consequent to the consent extended by the defacto complainant. It is true that, later on, the parties happened to be at logger-heads, leading to the disruption of the proposal to solemnise the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. However, it is not possible to say that the consent of the defacto complainant for the sexual relationship was procured due to any misconception of facts. That apart, the defacto complainant has stated in the affidavit in unequivocal terms that there was consensual relationship with the petitioner, and that their relation was broken as a result of certain subsequent issues.
2025:KER:58337 Crl.M.C No.8375/2023 5
6. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the de facto complainant had given statement to the Investigating Officer also to the effect that she has no subsisting grievance as against the petitioner, and that the issue has been amicably settled with the petitioner.
7. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible to say that the petitioner has committed the offence of rape or cheating. It is apparent from the records that, on all days when there had been coitus between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, she had extended consent for the same. The prosecution records do not bring-home any circumstances to discern that there was fraudulent and dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to say that the petitioner committed cheating. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him, is well founded.
2025:KER:58337 Crl.M.C No.8375/2023 6 In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.C No.251/2023 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-III, Pathanamthitta, which arose out of Crime No.357/2022 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-G.GIRISH JUDGE ma/05.08.2025 /True copy/ 2025:KER:58337 Crl.M.C No.8375/2023 7 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.357/2022 OF POLICE STATION OF KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ANNEXURE-A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.357/2022 OF POLICE STATION OF KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT WHICH IS NOW PENDING AS SC NO.251/2023 ON THE FILES OF ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-III, PATHANAMTHITTA ANNEXURE-A3: THE ORIGINAL OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 03.10.2023 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT