The Kerala High Court has recently refused to quash the criminal proceedings against a priest, Fr Jose Mathai Myladath, accused of raping a woman under the pretext of marriage. Justice A Badharudeen noted that the relationship between the accused and the complainant was based on a promise of marriage, establishing prima facie allegations of rape that justify a thorough trial.
According to the court’s order dated October 7, the complainant, who was legally eligible to marry, was repeatedly subjected to sexual intercourse by the priest, who promised to give up his priesthood and marry her. However, the accused later withdrew from this promise. The court emphasized that the continued relationship, based on the promise of marriage, meant there was no undue delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
The complainant alleged that Fr Myladath, who served at St. John’s Baptist Church in Muvattupuzha’s Kaloor, had initially met her when she approached him about her and her son’s baptism. The priest collected her contact information and invited her to the church, where on one occasion, he allegedly coerced her into a bedroom, locked the door, and forced her to have sexual intercourse. Their relationship, based on his false promise of leaving priesthood to marry her, continued for several months but ended in January 2024 when he went back on his word.
The priest was charged under Sections 376 (punishment for rape), 376(2)(n) (rape involving repeated acts on the same woman), and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He approached the court seeking to quash the charge sheet and ongoing proceedings.
The defense argued that the complaint stemmed from a misunderstanding and pointed out that the FIR was filed more than three months after the alleged incidents, raising doubts about the validity of the accusations. The defense also cited a public notice on social media, allegedly posted by the complainant, in which she denied the allegations. However, the complainant disputed this, stating she had been misled into withdrawing her initial settlement petition and denied authoring the social media post.
The court dismissed the priest’s plea, stating that the authenticity of the social media notice and other claims would be examined during trial. Therefore, the proceedings against the priest would continue.
The priest 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, while advocates Rameez Nooh, KN Muhammed Thanveer, Amin Ali Ashraf, and Kandampully Rahul represented the complainant.
