Kerala HC Quashes 8-Year-Delayed Sexual Assault Case Filed by Ex-Wife; Terms It Vexatious and Abuse of Process.

The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings in a sexual assault case filed by the petitioner’s ex-wife nearly eight years after the alleged incidents. The Court found the complaint, lodged post-divorce and after prior domestic disputes, to be vindictive, unexplainedly delayed, and unsupported by evidence. It held that continuation of trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

1. The petitioner was accused of raping the de facto complainant (then a minor) in 2013 and committing repeated sexual acts until 2014.
2. The FIR was registered in 2021, following a private complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., alleging offences under Sections 363, 366, 370, 354A(1), 376(1) IPC, and Sections 4 r/w 3(a), 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act.
3. The complainant and petitioner later married in March 2020, separated soon after, and divorced in March 2021 by talaq.
4. Prior litigations between the parties included two 498A IPC cases and one Domestic Violence proceeding, all of which were settled in Lok Adalat.

1. The case was fabricated after the marital breakdown to harass him.
2. There was no medical or corroborative evidence, and delay of 8 years remained unexplained.
3. The alleged incident dated 30.01.2014 was proved false, as the petitioner was attending school at that time.
4. Even if the allegations were accepted, they did not constitute rape or other offences as alleged.

1. The State contended that the allegations disclosed serious offences warranting trial.
2. It was argued that the Court should not quash the FIR at the threshold when prima facie evidence existed.

1. The complainant was the divorced wife of the petitioner; her multiple previous complaints had already been amicably settled.
2. The delay of over 8 years in lodging the FIR had no plausible explanation.
3. No medical evidence or independent witnesses supported the prosecution case.
4. The allegation regarding the 2014 incident was proved false by school attendance records.
5. The complaint was filed only after divorce, suggesting a motive of revenge.

The Court held that the complaint was maliciously motivated and an afterthought arising out of personal vengeance. Continuing prosecution in such circumstances would constitute an abuse of process of the court.

Case Title: XXXXXXXXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Court: High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar

Case No.: Crl.MC No. 4690 of 2022

Crime No.: 473/2021, Thadiyittaparambu Police Station, Ernakulam

SC No.: 6/2022, Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor

Citation: 2025:KER:79851