The Kerala High Court recently refused to quash the criminal proceedings against a priest accused of raping a woman after promising to marry her [Fr Jose Mathai Myladath v State of Kerala & anr]
Justice A Badharudeen said that the relationship between the accused, Fr Jose Mathai Myladath, and the complainant was based on the promise of marriage, indicating that prima facie allegations of rape were made out against the accused, warranting a thorough examination of the offences during trial.
"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," the Court said in its order of October 7.
The Court further noted that since the relationship continued on the promise of marriage, it cannot be said that there was delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
"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 stated.
In her complaint, the woman alleged that Fr Myladath was serving as a priest at St. John’s Baptist Church in Muvattupuzha's Kaloor when she approached him to discuss her and her son's baptism.
The priest proceeded to collect her contact details and later invited her to the church to discuss the matter.
On one such occasion, he allegedly lured her into a bedroom and after locking the door, forced her to have sexual intercourse
She claimed that their sexual encounters spanned several months on the pretext of him leaving his priesthood and marrying her, but it ended in January 2024, when the accused when back on his promise.
The priest was charged under Section 376 (punishment for rape), Section 376(2)(n) (rape involving repeated acts on the same woman), and Section 342 (punishment for wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and approached the Court to quash the charge sheet and further proceedings initiated against him.
The counsel representing the priest submitted that the complaint was based on a misunderstanding and that the woman had initially filed a petition to quash the First Information Report (FIR) which was lodged after a delay of more than three months, raising doubts about the truthfulness of the allegations.
The counsel also cited a public notice posted by the complainant on social media in which she had denied the allegations against the priest.
The complainant’s counsel rebutted these claims, stating that she had been misled into withdrawing her prior plea for settlement.
The complainant also disputed the authenticity of the social media notice, claiming that it had not been authored by her.
The public prosecutor, appearing for the State, also supported the stand of the complainant and contended that the complainant was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage.
The Court found no merit in the arguments made by the priest, noting that since the relationship continued on the promise of marriage, there was no delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
It also stated that the authenticity of the social media post required further examination which can be done during trial.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the application for quashing the proceedings.
The petitioner was represented by advocates PT Sheejish, P Sreeram, Harikiran, A Abdul Rahman, Parvathy S Manoj, Amrita Safal M and Yoosuf Safwan T Ajmal.
Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the State.
Advocates Rameez Nooh, KN Muhammed Thanveer, Amin Ali Ashraf and Kandampully Rahul K appeared for the complainant-woman.
[Read Order]