Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sunil Patil, S/o. R.B. Patil – Petitioner
Versus
State By Annapoorneshwari Nagar P.S., represented by State Public Prosecutor and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 6913 Of 2022
Decided On : 11-06-2024
Consent - Rape Allegation - IPC Sections 376, 417, 323, 504 - The court interpreted the consensual nature of the relationship, ruling that allegations of rape and cheating were unfounded, while allowing investigation for assault and insult.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the complainant had a consensual relationship for over five years, which led to a complaint alleging rape and other offences after the relationship ended. The petitioner sought to quash the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship was consensual and that the allegations of rape and cheating were not substantiated, allowing investigation only for the assault and insult charges.
Issues: Whether the allegations of rape and cheating were valid given the consensual nature of the relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that consensual relationships cannot lead to charges of rape or cheating, emphasizing that the complainant's repeated complaints indicated a pattern of behavior.
Result: The FIR for offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC is quashed; investigation for Sections 323 and 504 IPC is permitted.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual and lasted for approximately 5 to 7 years, which impacts the validity of allegations of rape and cheating (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court has found that the allegations under Sections 376 (rape) and 417 (cheating) IPC are unfounded due to the consensual nature of the relationship and the absence of essential elements required to establish these charges (!) (!) .
The investigation for offences under Sections 323 (causing hurt) and 504 (intentional insult) IPC is permitted, as the evidence of injuries and the wound certificate support these charges (!) .
The FIR registered for offences under Sections 376 and 417 IPC is quashed, but the investigation into the offences under Sections 323 and 504 IPC will continue (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that a consensual relationship does not authorize assault or insult, and such acts remain punishable regardless of prior consent or relationship status (!) .
The court has ordered that if a charge sheet is filed, the petitioner may seek discharge before the appropriate court, which will consider the merits independently (!) .
The order underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures for registration and investigation of non-cognizable offences (!) .
The court has also noted the habitual nature of the complainant in filing multiple complaints against different individuals, which influences the assessment of the allegations (!) (!) .
These points reflect the court’s reasoning and decisions regarding the case, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship, the evidence supporting certain charges, and the quashing of others based on legal principles.
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :
The petitioner-sole accused calls in question registration of a crime in Crime No.183 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 323 and 504 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Thejesh P., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant has remained absent and as a last chance, the matter was directed to be listed today. The learned counsel remains absent even today.
4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent befriended each other. The complainant is said to have been working in a Company by name Aegis at the International Tech Park Limited. The petitioner also is said to be an employee in a company in the International Tech Park Limited. The friendship flowers into a physical relationship and the said relationship lasts for more than 5 years and throughout the period, the petitioner is said to have indulged in sexual activities with the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered by the complainant against the petitioner on 11-07-2022, which becomes a crime in Crime No.183 of 2022, alleging that the petitioner has indulged in all the said activities on the promise of marriage and has breached the promise of marriage. Therefore, he has committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. This Court, on the score that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was purely consensual which lasted for about 5 years and therefore, it would not amount to an offence of rape, granted an interim order of stay of further investigation against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relationship between the two or all the acts that have happened between the two, are all consensual. He would seek to emphasize upon a fact that the complainant during the same period was in relationship with another man, one Kamalesh Choudhary, against whom the complainant on 05-02-2020 had registered a complaint alleging that he also had indulged in sexual acts on the promise of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, would submit that the complainant is habitual in registering repeated crimes on different men. He would therefore, seek quashment of the impugned proceedings as all the acts alleged are purely consensual.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would accept that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was purely consensual and the acts that are alleged are also consensual, except the fact that as narrated in the complaint, on 08-07-2022, the petitioner has beaten the complainant, the beating has lead to injury and the injury is depicted to be grievous in the wound certificate. He would therefore contend that the petitioner, in the least, should face investigation for the offences under Sections 323, 417 and 504 of the IPC.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner and the complainant befriending each other is a matter of record as they were employees in different Companies in the International Tech Park Limited. The relationship, according to the complainant was from 2015 through, till the date of registration of the crime. Therefore, it is close to 7 years. Since the issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
The complaint would narrate two circumstances, one, friendship between the petitioner and the complainant from 2015 to till the date of the complaint, and the other, the assault of the petitioner on the compla
Consensual relationships cannot be construed as grounds for rape or cheating allegations, and assault charges may still stand.
The court established that consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless there is clear evidence of deceit or lack of consent, emphasizing the importance ....
The judgment establishes the distinction between rape and consensual acts, emphasizing the active and reasoned deliberation required for consent under IPC Section 375, and the consequences of a decei....
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
