Mixed-Offence Complaints & Section 198 CrPC: Kerala High Court Confirms Police Investigative Power and Defines Rape by Fraudulent Marriage –
A Detailed Commentary on Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State of Kerala (Ker. HC 2025)

1. Introduction

The Kerala High Court’s common order dated 21 May 2025 in Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State of Kerala resolves two inter-connected proceedings – Criminal Revision Petition 295/2015 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case 1221/2015 – both instituted by the sole accused in S.C. No. 371/2013 (I Addl. Sessions Court, Thalassery). The accused sought:

• Reversal of the Sessions Court’s refusal to discharge him on charges under Sections 420, 493, 494, 495 & 376 IPC; and
• An order for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

The complainant alleged that the accused, while already married, misrepresented himself as a bachelor, went through a marriage ceremony at a Mysore temple, cohabited for years, and had sexual relations founded on that deceit – amounting to cheating, bigamy-related offences, and rape (consent obtained by misconception of fact). The defence, citing Section 198(1) CrPC, argued that offences under Chapter XX of the IPC (marriage offences) cannot be investigated by police except on a formal “complaint”, and contended that long consensual cohabitation negates rape.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed both the Revision Petition and the Miscellaneous Case, thereby:

1. Upholding the Sessions Court’s finding that there was prima facie material to frame charges for all alleged offences, including rape.
2. Holding that the statutory bar in Section 198(1) CrPC does not operate when the complaint contains other cognizable offences (here, Sections 376 & 420 IPC); thus the Magistrate lawfully forwarded the complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
3. Refusing further investigation, terming the request a tactic to delay trial when ample material already existed.
4. Directing the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, recognising the 14-year pendency.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Their Influence

• Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunnilal Talpada, (2012) 6 SCC 353 – The Supreme Court held that police can investigate a case encompassing both Section 498-A (cognizable) and Section 494 (Chapter XX, non-cognizable without complaint). The High Court relied squarely on this ratio to repel the Section 198(1) argument.
• Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 – Cited by the defence for the proposition that courts may order further investigation; the High Court acknowledged the principle but found no factual requirement.
• Gulzar Ahmed Azmi v. Union of India, (2012) 10 SCC 731 – Recognised that accused persons may seek further investigation; again distinguished on facts.
• Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC OnLine 586 – A Kerala precedent compiling Supreme Court tests for discharge under Sections 227/228 CrPC. The High Court reproduced these tests and applied them to affirm the Sessions Court order.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Section 198(1) CrPC Bar Removed in Mixed Complaints
   The Court construed the provision purposively: where a complaint contains cognizable offences outside Chapter XX (e.g., rape, cheating), the Magistrate may direct police investigation into the entire transaction. Following Ushaben, no artificial “splitting” is required; a contrary interpretation would “fetter” the police and fragment prosecution.
2. Prima Facie Case for Rape Based on Fraudulent Consent
   Section 375 Explanation 2 frames consent as an unequivocal voluntary agreement. Consent obtained on a “misconception of fact” (clause Secondly) vitiates the voluntariness. Here, evidence of:
   • a temple ceremony;
   • joint residence & bank accounts;
   • infertility treatment documents listing the accused as “husband”;
   • statements of multiple witnesses; and
   • the admitted subsisting first marriage
   justified the inference that the complainant’s sexual consent flowed from a fraudulent belief in lawful marriage. Length of cohabitation is irrelevant once the foundational deceit is alleged.
3. Discharge Principles Strictly Applied
   The Court reiterated that at the discharge stage: the court merely assesses whether the materials, taken at face value, raise a “strong suspicion” – not whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed. Detailed weighing of defence evidence or probative value is impermissible.
4. Rejection of Further Investigation
   Although Section 173(8) permits supplementary investigation, the Court held: (i) the request came from the accused (not from prosecution); (ii) earlier attempts to quash had failed; and (iii) the existing record was voluminous and internally corroborative. Therefore, ordering fresh investigation after 14 years would compromise expedition and victim’s interests.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation & Legal Landscape

• Clarifies Investigative Jurisdiction – Trial courts in Kerala and elsewhere may now confidently rely on this decision when faced with objections that police investigation into Chapter XX offences is “void”. Prosecutors can frame composite charges, avoiding piecemeal proceedings.
• Broadens Understanding of Rape by Deceit – The ruling affirms that even prolonged consensual cohabitation may amount to rape if the initial consent stemmed from a material falsehood about marital status. This may embolden survivors to pursue remedies where they discover belatedly that a partner’s marriage remains subsisting.
• Restrains Dilatory Defence Tactics – By equating belated “further-investigation” pleas with abuse of process, the Court signals intolerance for strategies that stall trials in gender-sensitive offences.
• Operationalises “Fast-Track” Directive – The six-month completion mandate exemplifies judicial concern over endemic delay, setting an administrative precedent for lower courts.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 198 (1) CrPC

A procedural clause requiring courts to take cognizance of marriage offences (Sections 493-498 IPC) only “upon a complaint” by an aggrieved person. It does not oust police power where other cognizable offences are also alleged.

Discharge (Sections 227/228 CrPC)

A pre-trial filter allowing the court to drop charges if evidence is patently insufficient. The test is prima facie‎ suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Further / Supplementary Investigation (Section 173(8) CrPC)

Allows police (or sometimes court-directed teams) to collect additional evidence after filing the charge-sheet. It is an exception, not the rule; courts grant it only when justice demonstrably requires it.

Consent Obtained by “Misconception of Fact”

Under Section 90 & Section 375 IPC, consent ceases to be real if given due to false representation of essential facts – such as the accused’s eligibility to marry. Any ensuing sex may constitute rape.

Chapter XX IPC

A cluster of offences relating to marriage: cohabitation caused by deceit (§493), bigamy (§494), concealment of former marriage (§495), etc.

5. Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s decision furnishes a two-fold doctrinal advance: (1) it decisively interprets Section 198 CrPC to permit police investigation of marriage offences when bundled with cognizable crimes, and (2) it clarifies that protracted cohabitation does not insulate an accused from rape charges if the woman’s consent was vitiated by fundamental deception. Simultaneously, the ruling strengthens procedural discipline by reiterating the limited scope of discharge and by constraining belated requests for further investigation. In the broader jurisprudential canvas, Santhosh Kumar equips courts to navigate the intersection of sexual autonomy, marital status misrepresentation, and procedural safeguards, ensuring that survivors of fraudulent relationships are not denied substantive justice on technical grounds.