Case Name and Citation
- Case Name (Formal):
X vs. State of Kerala & Another - Note: The name of the accused is redacted as 'X' in the official judgment to protect identity.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Citation/Identification:
- Judgment Number: 2025 INSC 1243 (Non-Reportable)
- Appeals:
- Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 17845 of 2024 (Filed to quash the FIR)
- Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18408 of 2024 (Filed against denial of anticipatory bail)
- Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan
- Date of Order: September 15, 2025
The Supreme Court of India recently approved a settlement in a highly sensitive case involving allegations of sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage, along with charges of cheating and criminal intimidation. This decision highlights the court's willingness to prioritize mutual resolution when both parties wish to move forward with their lives.
The legal journey began with a complaint filed in Kerala by a woman who was separated from her husband and navigating a divorce. She alleged that the accused, who initially offered help with her litigation, eventually forced himself upon her in December 2017.
The allegations were severe and multi-faceted, stretching over four years (2018–2022). The complainant stated the accused repeatedly promised marriage to maintain sexual relations. Furthermore, she alleged he photographed her without consent and used the pictures to threaten her husband if she disclosed the incidents.
Crucially, the complaint also involved financial abuse: she alleged the accused took ₹3.54 lakh in cash and 2.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments and refused to return them, leading to charges of cheating and criminal intimidation.
When the police registered the FIR (First Information Report), the accused first attempted to secure anticipatory bail (protection from arrest) from the Kerala High Court. The High Court rejected this plea, noting that the seriousness of the rape allegation required a full custodial investigation.
The accused then filed a petition to quash the entire case under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This, too, was dismissed, as the High Court determined the allegations required full investigation and could not be stopped at that early stage.
Aggrieved by both orders, the accused took the matter to the Supreme Court of India through separate petitions.
Before a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan, the tone of the hearings shifted. On December 19, the Supreme Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the accused, and during subsequent proceedings, the judges actively encouraged the parties to seek an amicable resolution.
This encouragement worked. By March 2025, both the accused and the complainant confirmed their mutual willingness to settle the entire matter and close the chapter on the conflict.
The Court's Final Orders for Closure
The amicable settlement centered on resolving the financial components of the dispute. The accused offered to return the money and gold ornaments he had allegedly taken.
Taking note of this commitment, the Supreme Court allowed the settlement and issued detailed directions to formalize the resolution:
- Release of Money: The Court ordered that the ₹3.54 lakh that the accused had deposited before the trial court must be released to the complainant or a person nominated by her after due verification.
- Return of Gold: Similarly, the gold ornaments were to be returned to the complainant.
This case is a powerful example of how the Supreme Court, while recognizing the gravity of criminal charges, can facilitate a compassionate path to justice when the individuals involved prioritize peace and closure over prolonged legal battles.