The Kerala High Court has quashed an 8-year-old sexual assault case filed by a woman against her ex-husband, ruling that it was motivated by revenge after divorce and lacked credible evidence. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar said the case was an “abuse of the process of the court.”
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court, in a major judgment delivered on October 25, 2025, quashed the rape case filed by a woman against her former husband, accusing him of raping her years before their marriage. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed that the case was filed eight years after the alleged incident, lacked any medical or independent evidence, and was clearly motivated by revenge after the couple’s divorce.
The order was passed in Crl.M.C. No. 4690 of 2022, which arose from Crime No. 473 of 2021 registered at Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, Ernakulam, and related to S.C. No. 6 of 2022 before the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor.
The woman had alleged that in August 2013, when she was 17 years old, the accused took her on his motorcycle to a vacant land near Attupadi–Chiravakkad Road and raped her. The prosecution charged him under Sections 363, 366, 370, 354A(1), and 376(1) of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Represented by Advocate P.M. Ziraj, the accused argued that the case was false, fabricated, and filed only to harass him after their relationship ended. He pointed out that the complaint was lodged in July 2021, almost eight years after the alleged offence, and only after multiple criminal and domestic violence cases filed by his wife during their short marriage had already been settled amicably.
The High Court noted that the complainant and accused had married on March 8, 2020, but their relationship soon soured, and the man divorced her by pronouncing talaq on March 12, 2021. During their brief marriage, she had filed two cases under Section 498A IPC and a domestic violence petition, which were all later settled before the Lok Adalat in early 2021.
The Court found it suspicious that only after these cases were quashed and the couple separated, the woman filed a fresh complaint alleging that the accused had raped her years ago in 2013 and 2014, long before their marriage.
According to the complaint, the woman stated that while studying in Class 7, the man, who was her senior, expressed love and promised marriage. She claimed that on August 10, 2013, he took her to an empty plot and forced her to have sex, and later repeated such acts in places like the terrace of a shopping complex and lodges in Munnar and Adimaly. She also alleged that he had taken ₹6 lakh from her and failed to return ₹2.65 lakh.
The Court, however, found the entire story unreliable. It pointed out that the eight-year delay in filing the complaint was completely unexplained. Justice Pratheep Kumar noted that the woman herself admitted that she continued to meet the accused after becoming an adult, and even married him later, which weakened the claim of non-consensual sexual acts.
During the investigation, the police found no medical or forensic evidence to support the allegations. The Court also highlighted key contradictions. The complainant claimed that on January 30, 2014, she was sexually assaulted by the accused on the terrace of Kallan Shopping Complex, and that a witness (CW1) had seen them. But when CW1’s statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, he denied seeing any such incident.
Further, the investigation showed that the accused was attending school till 4:00 p.m. on the same day, which proved that the alleged incident could not have taken place.
Justice Pratheep Kumar noted that with one alleged incident proved false, and no evidence to support the others, the entire case became doubtful. The Court remarked that it was nothing more than a “retaliatory complaint filed after divorce.”
The judgment emphasized that courts must remain cautious against misuse of criminal law in matrimonial and post-divorce disputes, and reiterated that continuing such cases serves no purpose other than harassment.
The Court clearly observed that “a complaint filed after several years of silence, without convincing explanation, and following the settlement of earlier disputes, bears the mark of an afterthought intended to wreak vengeance.”
Concluding the order, Justice Pratheep Kumar stated that the “continuance of this case against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the court.”
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court allowed the petition and quashed all further proceedings in S.C. No. 6 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 473 of 2021 pending before the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor.
The judgment stands as a strong message against weaponizing criminal law for personal revenge and reaffirms that “the judicial process cannot be used for vengeance.”
Laws and Sections Involved (Explanatory Table)
| Law / Act | Section | Provision Title / Nature | Relevance in Case |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 363 | Kidnapping | Alleged that accused took the girl (aged 17) from her residence. |
| Section 366 | Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage | Alleged that he took her intending sexual relationship/marriage. | |
| Section 370 | Trafficking of persons | Initially alleged as part of sexual exploitation. | |
| Section 354A(1) | Sexual harassment | Alleged inappropriate touching (pressing breasts, etc.). | |
| Section 376(1) | Rape | Main allegation – sexual intercourse without consent when she was a minor. | |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 | Section 3(a) | Penetrative sexual assault | Invoked for alleged act when victim was 16 years old. |
| Section 4 | Punishment for penetrative sexual assault | Punishment corresponding to Section 3 offence. | |
| Section 7 | Sexual assault | Alleged touching with sexual intent. | |
| Section 8 | Punishment for sexual assault | Punishment for acts under Section 7. | |
| Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 | Section 156(3) | Power of Magistrate to order investigation | Complaint was sent by Magistrate to SHO under this provision. |
| Section 482 | Inherent powers of High Court | Petition was filed under this section to quash proceedings. | |
| Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Section 498A | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Wife earlier filed two false cases (Crime Nos. 729/2020 & 466/2020) under this section. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | — | Civil protection for women | Wife had also filed a DV case (Annexure-12) later settled via Lok Adalat (Annexure-13). |
Case Summary
| Field | Details |
| Case Title | XXXXXXXXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. |
| Case Number | Crl.M.C. No. 4690 of 2022 |
| Crime Number | Crime No. 473 of 2021 of Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, Ernakulam |
| Connected Case | S.C. No. 6 of 2022, Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor |
| Court | High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam |
| Bench / Judge | Justice C. Pratheep Kumar |
| Date of Judgment | October 25, 2025 (3rd Karthika, 1947) |
| Date of Hearing | October 17, 2025 |
| Petitioner / Accused | Name withheld (Husband) |
| Respondents | 1. State of Kerala2. Inspector of Police, Thadiyittaparambu Police Station3. Wife (Name withheld) |
| Counsels for Petitioner | Sri. P.M. Ziraj, Shri. Irfan Ziraj |
| Public Prosecutor (for State) | Sri. U. Jayakrishnan |
| Statutes Invoked (Original FIR) | Sections 363, 366, 370, 354A(1), 376(1) IPC; Sections 4 r/w 3(a) and 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act |
| Related Provisions in Litigation History | Section 498A IPC, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 156(3) CrPC |
| Outcome | All further proceedings in S.C. No. 6 of 2022 quashed |
| Reasoning | Complaint filed 8 years later, lack of medical and independent evidence, contradictions in testimony, and filing after marital disputes and talaq indicate vindictive motive. |
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advise.