Kerala HC Declines To Quash Case Against Priest Who Allegedly Engaged In Sexual Intercourse On Pretext Of Marriage By Offering To Leave Priesthood

The crime was registered against the Priest by the complainant for offences punishable under Sections Section 376, 376(2)(n) and 342 of the IPC.

Justice A. Badharudeen held that prime facie allegations are made out and proceedings cannot be closed against the accused. Additionally, the Court stated that filing a petition to quash the case and its subsequent withdrawal were no grounds to close the proceedings against the accused.

“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 petitioner submitted that he was innocent of all allegations. It was also stated that the complainant had previously filed a petition to quash the proceedings, stating that there was no sexual harassment and that the complaint was filed due to misunderstanding.

The petitioner also stated that the FIR was lodged after a delay of more than 3 months. It was also stated that the complainant had a public notice/message on social media claiming that allegations against her and the petitioner were fake and defamatory.

The complainant submitted before the Court that the accused offered to marry her by leaving his priesthood and committed sexual intercourse with her repeatedly. It was stated that she agreed to withdraw the proceedings after the accused promised to take care of her, but he later retracted that promise. It was further stated that the public notice/message was not made by her.

The Court noted that the FIS and FIR state that the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with the complainant on the assurance that he would look after and marry her.

The Court noted that the complainant has a child from her earlier relationship with another man. The Court noted that the complainant was not in a legal marriage previously and was therefore legally eligible to get married.

Further, it stated that the authenticity of the public notice/message sent on WhatsApp that the allegations were false was disputed by the complainant. The Court thus stated that the genuineness of the messages was a matter of evidence to be considered during the trial.

As such, the Court declined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates P T Sheejish, P Sreeram, Harikiran, A.Abdul Rahman, Parvathy S Manoj, Amrita Safal M, Yoosuf Safwan T Ajmal

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth, Advocates Rameez Nooh, K.N.Muhammed Thanveer, Amin Ali Ashraf, Kandampully Rahul

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 7147 OF 2024

Case Title: Fr. Jose Mathai Myladath v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 623