Kerala HC Refuses To Quash Rape Case Against Priest Accused Of Indulging In Sexual Intercourse Under False Promise of Marriage
The Kerala High Court has decided not to quash proceedings against a priest accused of having sexual intercourse with a woman under the pretense of marrying her, with assurances that he would leave his priesthood.
The case involved allegations that fall under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen said, “Adverting to the facts of the case, as discussed, it is perceivable that the defacto complainant, who is legally eligible to solemnise marriage as there was no legal marriage at any point of time, was given promise of marriage by the accused after expressing his readiness to give up his Priesthood, after subjecting the defacto complainant to repeated sexual intercourse promising to marry her, retracted from the marriage. Since the relationship continued on the promise of marriage, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. Thus, prima facie, allegations are made out warranting trial of the matter and in such a case, there is no reason to close the proceedings merely on the fact that earlier the defacto complainant filed a petition to quash the crime”
The Court highlighted that the complainant, who was legally eligible to marry due to the absence of any prior legal marriage, claimed that the accused repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her, assuring her of marriage while retracting that promise later.
Advocate P. T. Sheejish appeared for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor M. P. Prasanth appeared for the Respondents.
The accused had maintained his innocence and argued that the delay of over three months in filing the FIR was problematic. He also pointed to a public notice or social media message suggesting that the allegations against both parties were false and defamatory.
In contrast, the complainant asserted that the accused had indeed promised to marry her and had engaged in sexual relations based on that promise. Although she initially sought to withdraw her complaint based on the accused’s assurances of support, he subsequently went back on his word. She also claimed that the social media message disavowing the allegations was not posted by her.
The Court acknowledged that the FIR detailed the priest’s assurance to marry the complainant as a basis for their relationship. It was also noted that the complainant has a child from a previous relationship, which further established her eligibility for marriage.
The authenticity of the social media message, which claimed the allegations were unfounded, was contested by the complainant. The Court concluded that this issue of authenticity should be explored during the trial, indicating that the matter is to be thoroughly examined in a legal setting.
Consequently, the Court ruled against quashing the proceedings, allowing the case to move forward.
Cause Title: Fr. Jose Mathai Myladath v. State of Kerala & Anr., [2024:KER:74177]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates P. T. Sheejish, P. Sreeram, Harikiran, A. Abdul Rahman, Parvathy S. Manoj, Amrita Safal M., and Yoosuf Safwan T. Ajmal.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor M. P. Prasanth and Advocates Rameez Nooh, K. N. Muhammed Thanveer, Amin Ali Ashraf, and Kandampully Rahul.
