Fr. Christeen Chiramel vs State Of Kerala
2026 Latest Caselaw 1257 Ker

Kerala High Court

Fr. Christeen Chiramel vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2026

Crl.M.C.5375/2025


                                     1

                                                    2026:KER:10688

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
      FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
                          CRL.MC NO. 5375 OF 2025
    CRIME NO.2262/2023 OF Fort Kochi Police Station, Ernakulam
             SC NO.1075 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
         COURT (VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN), ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

             FR. CHRISTEEN CHIRAMEL
             AGED 34 YEARS
             S/O LATE LOUIS THOMAS, CHIRAMEL, VENGINISSERY,
             THRISSUR, PIN - 680563

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.S.RAJEEV
             SRI.V.VINAY
             SRI.M.S.ANEER
             SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R.
             SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
             SMT.DIPA V.
             SHRI.AKASH CHERIAN THOMAS

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 2262/2023 OF FORT POLICE STATION,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT), PIN - 682031

     2       XXXXXXXXXX
             XXXXXXXXXX


             BY ADVS.
             SMT.A.V.INDIRA
             SRI.A.V.SAJAN
             SMT.SAHDHA K.U.
             SHRI.ANANDHU SATHEESH
             SMT.SREEDEVI S.

             PP. SMT. C.SEENA
             SMT. A.V.INDIRA FOR R2

         THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

28.1.2026, THE COURT ON 06.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.5375/2025


                                        2

                                                             2026:KER:10688

                                   ORDER

Dated : 6th February, 2026

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.1075/2024 on the file of the

Additional Sessions Court (Violence Against Women & Children), Ernakulam,

arising out of crime No.2262/2023 of Fort Kochi police station filed this

petition under S.528 BNSS praying for quashing all further proceedings

against him. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376(2)

(n) IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to

satisfy his sexual lust, after promising to marry the de facto complainant

committed rape upon her repeatedly and thereafter refused to marry her.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the

entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same

will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Therefore, he

prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the

de facto complainant/2nd respondent as well as by the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Priest. From the FI statement it is

revealed that at the time of the alleged incident, the de facto complainant was a

divorcee and the mother of a student of Plus One. As per the FI statement,

2026:KER:10688

since June 2018, the petitioner and the de facto complainant became friends.

They used to chat through Facebook and Messenger and met together for the

first time at Lulu Mall on 29.11.2018. The petitioner promised to abandon his

priesthood and to marry the de facto complainant. He also insisted on having a

physical relationship with her. On 16.12.2018 at the instance of the petitioner,

she accompanied the petitioner to Fort Kochi and they had taken a room in a

home stay and on that day, they had a physical relationship. Thereafter they

regularly met at different places in different hotels and had physical relation

with each other till August 2023. As per the FI statement, on 17.8.2023 the

petitioner left, promising to return after giving up the priesthood, but thereafter

he did not return.

6. The version of the petitioner is that thereafter he met with a

serious accident on 16.9.2023 and sustained severe head injury. According to

him, even now he is under treatment at Jubilee Mission hospital and

undergoing psychiatric treatment for memory loss. In the meantime, the de

facto complainant filed W.P.(Crl).957/2023 before this Court alleging that the

petitioner is under illegal detention. However, after getting convinced that he is

not under illegal detention, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Further,

according to the petitioner, the attempt of the de facto complainant is only to

pressurize him to yield to her demand for money.

7. In the decision in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2025) 5

2026:KER:10688

SCC 764, after referring to two earlier decisions, the Apex Court in paragraph

23 held that :

"Recently this Court in XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 496 held that when the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and when the complainant was aware of the consequences of her actions, the ingredients of the offence of rape were not made out. Similarly, in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608 arising out of identical facts, this Court has enumerated the following:

"18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."

8. In the decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. The State of

Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 11 SCC 398, in paragraph 28 the Apex

Court held that :

"Thus, in a situation where physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly by the woman, it cannot be said with certainty that the said physical relationship was purely because of the alleged promise made by the appellant to marry her. Thus, unless it can be shown that the physical relationship was purely because of the promise of marriage, thereby having a direct nexus with the physical relationship without being influenced by any other consideration, it cannot be said that there was vitiation of consent under misconception of fact.

9. In paragraph 30, 39 and 40 the Apex Court further held that :

2026:KER:10688

30. It may be also noted that there may be occasions where a promise to marry was made initially but for various reasons, a person may not be able to keep the promise to marry. If such promise is not made from the very beginning with the ulterior motive to deceive her, it cannot be said to be a false promise to attract the penal provisions of Section 375 IPC, punishable under Section 376 IPC.

39. In our view if criminality is to be attached to such prolonged physical relationship at a very belated stage, it can lead to serious consequences. It will open the scope for imputing criminality to such long term relationships after turning sour, as such an allegation can be made even at a belated stage to drag a person in the juggernaut of stringent criminal process. There is always a danger of attributing criminal intent to an otherwise disturbed civil relationship of which the Court must also be mindful.

40. It is evident from the large number of cases decided by this Court dealing with similar matters as discussed above that there is a worrying trend that consensual relationships going on for prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence."

10. In Jothiragawan v. State Rep.By the Inspector of Police and

Ors., MANU/SC/0377/2025 the victim accompanied the accused to a hotel

room wherein she was allegedly raped by him. In spite of that, she again went

along with him in the same hotel room and complained that he committed rape

upon her again and again. In the above background in paragraph 11 and 12 the

Apex Court held as follows :

11. We have already found that there is no promise of marriage to coerce consent from the victim for sexual intercourse; as

2026:KER:10688

forthcoming from the statements made by the victim. The promise if any was after the first physical intercourse and even later the allegation was forceful intercourse without any consent. In all the three instances it was the allegation that, the intercourse was on threat and coercion and there is no consent spoken of by the victim, in which case there cannot be any inducement found, on a promise held out. The allegation of forceful intercourse on threat and coercion is also not believable, given the relationship admitted between the parties and the willing and repeated excursions to hotel rooms.

12. On a reading of the statements made by the victim before the Police, both the First Information Statement and that recorded later on, we are not convinced that the sexual relationship admitted by both the parties was without the consent of the victim. That they were closely related and were in a relationship is admitted by the victim. The allegation is also of threat and coercion against the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which even as per the victim's statement was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room. The victim had also categorically stated that after the first incident and the second incident she was mentally upset, but that did not caution her from again accompanying the accused to hotel rooms.

11. In the decision in Biswajyoti Chatterjee v. State of West

Bengal and Another, 2025 5 SCC 749 in paragraph 21 the Apex Court held

that :

"We find that there is a growing tendency of resorting to initiation of criminal proceedings when relationships turn sour. Every consensual relationship, where a possibility of marriage may exist,

2026:KER:10688

cannot be given a colour of a false pretext to marry, in the event of a fall out. It is such lis that amounts to an abuse of process of law, and it is under such circumstances, that we deem fit to terminate the proceedings at the stage of charge itself. "

12. In the decision in State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and

Others (AIR 1992 SC 604), after analyzing various decisions, the Apex Court

dealt with the circumstances under which the extraordinary power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent power under Section

482 Cr.P.C could be exercised in paragraph 104 as follows :-

104. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chap.XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Art.226 or the inherent powers under S.482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers

2026:KER:10688

under S.156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under S.155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the F.I.R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

13. From the averments in the FI statement, it is revealed that the

relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was a

consensual one. In the FI statement, the de facto complainant claims that she

had given consent because of the promise of marriage given by the petitioner.

Admittedly, the petitioner is a Priest and he could marry her only if he

2026:KER:10688

abandons his priesthood. It shows that, in spite of knowing the fact that the

petitioner is a Priest who cannot marry her in his present status, the de facto

complainant permitted him to have a sexual relationship with her for a long

period from December 2018 till July 2023. Therefore, the claim of the de facto

complainant that she had given consent for a sexual relationship because of the

promise of marriage, cannot be believed.

14. Since the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto

complainant was a consensual one and there is nothing to show that the

consent was obtained in any vitiating circumstances or under misconception of

facts, the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out against the petitioner.

Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings

against the petitioner as the same will only be an abuse of the process of the

Court.

15. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings

against the petitioner in S.C.1075/2024 on the file of the Additional Sessions

Court (Violence Against Women & Children), Ernakulam is quashed.

Sd/-

C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge

Mrcs/29.1.26

2026:KER:10688

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 5375 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure-VI(A) A COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.08.2023 Annexure-VI(B) A COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL Annexure-VI(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED FROM JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL