Kerala High Court
Jijith Nramesh vs State Of Kerala on 22 October, 2025
2025:KER:78520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 30TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5899 OF 2021
CRIME NO.62/2021 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.454 OF 2021
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT / RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JIJITH NRAMESH
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. RAMESHANN K.V., KOOLLOTH VALAPPIL HOUSE,
MAYILATTU, KANOOL P.O., THALIPARAMBA KANNUR-
670562.
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.HAREESH M.R.
SMT.NEENA ARIMBOOR
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.T.THASMI
SMT.M.J.ANOOPA
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF
THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2025:KER:78520
CRL.M.C.NO.5899 OF 2021
2
3 XXX
X
OTHER PRESENT:
PP- SRI.SANAL P. RAJ
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:78520
CRL.M.C.NO.5899 OF 2021
3
ORDER
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2025
This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, by the accused in Crime No.62/2021 of Thaliparambu Police
Station, which is now pending as S.C. No.454/2021 before the Sessions
Court, Thalassery. The offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable
under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused who is not a member of
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe promised to marry the defacto
complainant who is a member of Scheduled Caste community, committed
rape on her on several dates since 02.09.2019 impregnated her and thereby he
alleged to have committed the above offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, at the time of
the alleged incident, the defacto complainant was already married to another
person and the marriage was not dissolved and as such he was disqualified
from entering into another marriage and as such the alleged promise of
marriage is false. Therefore, he prayed for quashing Annexure D Final Report
and all further proceedings against the petitioner.
2025:KER:78520
CRL.M.C.NO.5899 OF 2021
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the
application.
5. Even as per the allegations in the final report and FI statement, the
defacto complainant came in contact with the petitioner when the divorce
petition filed by her before the Family Court was pending consideration.
According to the defacto complainant, at that time, the petitioner promised to
marry her and thereafter they had sexual relationship on several days and
thereby she became pregnant.
6. In the FI statement and in the Final Report, it is also stated that,
in the meantime, some ceremonies like that of a marriage was also performed
between them. Therefore, even as per the prosecution case, the relationship
between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was a consensual one.
Now the question to be considered is whether there is any merits in the
prosecution case that the petitioner had physical relationship with the defacto
complainant after giving promise to marry her.
7. Even as per the FI statement, at the time of the incident, the
defacto complainant was a married lady and her marriage with her husband
was still in existence. Therefore, as argued by the learned counsel for the
2025:KER:78520
CRL.M.C.NO.5899 OF 2021
petitioner, the defacto complainant was disqualified from contracting another
valid marriage and as such her claim that he had given consent because of the
alleged promise to marry cannot be believed. Therefore, the prosecution has
not succeeded in establishing a primafacie case against the petitioner under
Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, continuance of the
proceedings against the petitioner is only an abuse of the process of the Court
and hence it is liable to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.
No.454/2021 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thalassery is quashed.
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
Pvv
2025:KER:78520
CRL.M.C.NO.5899 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.2.2021.
ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 11.2.2021
REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CRIME
NO.62 OF 2021 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE
STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE C CERTIFIED COPY OF THE MAHASAR PREPARED BY
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION DATED
12.2.2021.
ANNEXURE D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.C.NO.454 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY, ARISING OUT
OF CRIME NO.62 OF 2021 OF THALIPARMBA
POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE W.P(CRIMINAL) NO.315 OF
2020.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P(CRIMINAL) NO.315 OF 2020 DATED
21.12.2020.
