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.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.46/2024, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 354A(1)(i), 354A(2), 504, 506, 509, 417, 201, 109 r/w. 34 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri Raghunatha K., learned counsel for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The second respondent is the complaint. The petitioner - accused No.1 is said to have relationship with the complainant, on the score that they were known to each other since childhood. The friendship appears to have blossomed into relationship and the relationship getting physical as well, on the pretext of promise of marriage. The talks of marriage take place and on rejection of the marriage proposal, a crime then emerges in crime No.17/2023, on a complaint registered by the second respondent, for the allegations of repeated rape, as obtaining under Section 376 (2)(n) of the IPC , on the pretext of marriage. The police after investigation, file a charge sheet and maintained the afore-quoted offences that were alleged at the time of registration of the crime. The concerned Court commits the case to the Court of Sessions, in the light of the offence being rape. The matter is now pending before the Sessions Court, in S.C.No.46/2024, for the afore-quoted offences. The pendency or continuance of the proceedings is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the entire issue sprang out of a private complaint registered by the complainant in P.C.R.No.59 of 2023 and on its reference made under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate, for it to become a crime in crime No.17/2023, for the afore-quoted offences. Learned counsel would submit that there is no promise of marriage ever meted out by petitioner No.1 and that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were friends and having relationship. All acts in the relationship are consensual between petitioner No.1 and the complainant, which went on for a period of 2 years or more and when petitioner No.1 wanted to marry someone else, the complaint emerges from the hands of the second respondent. He would submit that none of the offences that are alleged against the petitioners can be laid as they are not on breach of promise of marriage or love but are consensual acts. Learned counsel would seek to place reliance upon plethora of judgements, all of which would bear consideration qua the relevance in the course of the order.

5. Insofar as the other accused are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are the mother and friends of petitioner No.1 - accused No.1, who are also drawn into the web of crime for the aforesaid offences. He would submit that this is a clear case of abuse of the process of the law.

6. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 and the second respondent - complainant did have a relationship and it was on the pretext of marriage. Whether it was a false promise of marriage or a promise of marriage that had gone wrong, is a matter of trial and therefore, the petition should not be entertained at this juncture, as it is for the accused to come out clean in a full blown trial. Even with regard to other petitioners - accused Nos.2 to