Consent in sexual relationships must be unequivocal and voluntary; a false promise to marry vitiates consent, leading to potential criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

Neela Gokhale, J.

1. The Petitioner seeks to quash Special Case No. 441 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Sessions Court, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, arising out of FIR No. 135 of 2024 dated 8th February 2024 registered with Kondhwa Police Station, District-Pune for the offenses punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as under :

2.1. In the year 2022, while the Respondent No. 2 was working in a IT Company named Publicis, Mumbai, she became acquainted with the Petitioner as a co-worker. The relationship grew into friendship and thereafter he proposed marriage to her. The Petitioner also met the Respondent No. 2’s parents.

2.2. On 12th December 2022, the Petitioner’s parents had gone to Mumbai. The Petitioner repeatedly called the Respondent No. 2 to his house and on 14th December 2022, he took her to home and despite her resistance, established sexual relationship with her. It is alleged that, the Petitioner raped her. She had specifically and expressly refused to consent to the sexual relationship,

2.3. In February 2023, the parties decided to get married with the consent of their respective parents. The Petitioner’s parents were aware that, the Respondent No. 2 belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and knowing this, they performed engagement ceremony on 23rd June 2023 at Ramkrishna Hall, Camp, Pune. The entire expenditure of the ceremony was borne by the Respondent No. 2’s parents. Her father also gave Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash to the Petitioner. His mother repeatedly told her that, despite her being of Scheduled Caste Community, they had accepted her since the Respondent No. 2 was good looking and had a job which paid good salary.

2.4. The Petitioner used to always take her to the Residency Business Hotel, Koregaon Park and forcibly rape her. When she resisted, he assured that he would marry her. Later, he insisted that, the entire expenses of the marriage to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- shall be borne by the Respondent No. 2’s parents. The Petitioner and his parents also demanded that the Respondent No. 2’s parents shall gift expensive sarees, 8 tolas gold etc. for the marriage. They bought a mangalsutra of 8 grams gold and demanded that her parents pay Rs. 30,000/- for the same. Further unreasonable demands in respect of dowry etc. were made.

2.5. Quarrels ensued between the parties regarding the demands of dowry and the Petitioner also dug up quarrels with her on petty issues. Ultimately on 12th January 2024, the Petitioner messaged her that he was unable to marry her. The Respondent No. 2 and her parents tried to convince him otherwise but he refused to even speak to them. Finally on 14th January 2024, the Petitioner called the Respondent No. 2 and her family members to Empress Gardens, Wanorie. His parents told them that, the Petitioner would not marry her. The Petitioner himself also refused to marry her and said that, she can do what she likes but he would never marry her. The Respondent No. 2 was aggrieved that, she was compelled to have sexual relationship with the Petitioner on an assurance of marriage when all along the Petitioner had no intention to keep the promise. Thus the Respondent No. 2 filed the impugned FIR.

3. Mr. Sahim Ansari, learned counsel appears for the Petitioner and Ms. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy, learned A.P.P. represents the State.

4. Mr. Ansari submits that, the present case is fit to be compounded and no useful purpose will be served to continue prosecution. He contends that, there was a consensual relationship between the parties and no offence is made out. The parties are adults in a love relationship and were to marry. It was only because of certain issues between them that he was compelled to call off the marriage. He submits that, there is no intention to cheat and the Respondent No. 2 was of an understanding age and