Kerala High Court
Vijesh P A vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 820 OF 2025
CRIME NO.834/2024 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE
ORDER DATED 14.07.2025 IN CMP NO.546/2025 IN SC NO.202
OF 2025 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN CMP/ACCUSED:
VIJESH P A
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O.VINEETH DASAN PM, VATTAPARAYIL HOUSE, MEENMUTTI,
KODENCHERY, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673580
BY ADV SHRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN CMP, POLICE AND DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008
3 XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
SMT PUSHPALATHA M.K., SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:66882
Crl.R.P No.820/2025
2
ORDER
The order dated 14.07.2025 of the Fast Track Special Court, Kozhikode in CMP No.546/2025 in SC No.202/2025 is under challenge in this petition filed by the accused in the said case under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023. The petitioner had filed the aforesaid petition before the learned Special Judge seeking discharge. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 323, 341, 363, 376 and 506 IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner herein, who was in love with the de facto complainant, committed rape upon her, on a day in the month of August 2019, in a resort, where he took the de facto complainant with the assurance that he will not even touch her body. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner violated the above assurance and resorted to forceful sexual intercourse with her that night. It is the further allegation of the de facto complainant that the petitioner video recorded the coitus and thereafter used it to threaten the de facto complainant by saying that he would publish the same. On 23.01.2020, the petitioner is alleged to have physically assaulted and verbally abused the de facto complainant inside a car while they were travelling together. It is stated that on subsequent occasions the de facto complainant consented to sexual relationship with the 2025:KER:66882 Crl.R.P No.820/2025 3 petitioner believing his assurance to marry her. Later on, a marriage engagement ceremony is said to have been performed at the instance of the family members of both parties. However, the petitioner is alleged to have backtracked from the aforesaid offer of marriage alleging that the de facto complainant was of promiscuous nature.
3. The petitioner approached the Special Court for discharge stating various grounds like delay in lodging FIR, lack of medical evidence, consensual nature of the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, the suppression of marriage engagement ceremony between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, etc. The learned Special Judge rejected all those contentions and found that there is absolutely no reason to discharge the petitioner from the offences alleged against him.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. It is true that there had been considerable delay in lodging the First Information Statement with regard to the offence alleged in this case. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that the de facto complainant has got her own explanation for the aforesaid delay. According to her, the threat perpetrated upon her by the petitioner by saying that he would make the video visuals of their coitus public, was one of the reasons which prevented 2025:KER:66882 Crl.R.P No.820/2025 4 her from preferring a complaint. Be that as it may, the delay in lodging the FIS cannot by itself be considered as a reason for discharging the accused in a case like this. The learned Special Judge has rightly observed the proposition of law in the above regard by referring to relevant case laws.
6. It is pertinent to note that the FIS of the de facto complainant would clearly reveal that the first incident of sexual intercourse between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, which took place in the month of August 2019, was in fact a typical case of rape wherein the petitioner overpowered the de facto complainant and resorted to sexual intercourse by violence. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is alleged to have cunningly recorded the coitus and made use of the above video recording to threaten the de facto complainant and to make her surrender on subsequent occasions. In a case like this, the contention of the petitioner that the love affair between him and the de facto complainant would justify the consensual sexual relationship, cannot be accepted. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the reasoning adopted by the learned Special Judge in rejecting the argument advanced by the petitioner in the above regard. So also, the mere fact that the de facto complainant did not disclose the marriage engagement ceremony between the petitioner and her, in the first statement given by her to the Police, cannot be a reason to disbelieve the 2025:KER:66882 Crl.R.P No.820/2025 5 version of the de facto complainant, especially, at this stage, where the Court is concerned only on the question whether the prosecution records could prima facie bring home the offence of rape. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Special Judge on that point as well.
7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no reason to hold that there is lack of sufficient materials to frame charge against the petitioner in respect of the offences alleged against him. Needless to say, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the impugned order of the learned Special Judge is bereft of merit.
In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Trial Court shall decide the case untrammeled by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP