The court emphasized that when a victim alleges rape and states there was no consent, the presumption under Section 114A of the IPC must apply, reinforcing that such matters must be resolved in a full trial and not dismissed at the preliminary stage.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The informant used to talk to the petitioner on his mobile phone. The informant complained that the petitioner had raped her. The police registered the F.I.R. No. 14/2020 dated 13.03.2020 at Women Police Station Bhiuli District Mandi, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. The police conducted the investigation. The police obtained the call details record and arrested the petitioner. The statement of the informant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she stated that the petitioner had met her on 12.03.2020 and dropped her in her home. He returned at 9:30 pm-10:00 p.m. to the informant’s home and raped her.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition seeking to quash the F.I.R. N o. 14/2020 and consequential proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2020, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, H.P.

3. It was asserted that a perusal of the F.I.R. and statement of the informant shows that the allegations are false and the proceeding isan abuse of process of the Court. The medical record does not show any visible injury except bleeding. A married woman who enters into a consensual sexual relationship with a man other than her husband cannot prosecute him for rape on the false pretext of marriage. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and F.I.R. and consequential proceedings be quashed

4. I have heard Mr Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1-State and Ms Ambika Kotwal, Advocate for respondent no.2.

5. Mr Parveen Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The contents of the F.I.R. do not show the commission of cognizable offence. The informant is a married woman and her plea that she had entered into a cons ensual relationship with the petitioner on the pretext of the marriage is not acceptable. He relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in S.Rajadurai Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & another W.P. (CRL) 208/2023 & CRL M.A. 5217 of 2023, decided on 13.09.2023 and Kerala High Court in Tino Thankacha vs. State of Kerala 2022, CRL.MC No. 1819 of 2019 decided on 22nd November 2022 in support of his submission.

6. Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no.1-State submitted that the petitioner had raped the informant forcibly. There is a presumption under Section 114A of Cr.P.C. regarding the absence of consent in a rape case; hence, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. Ms Ambika Kotawal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 adopted the submissions advanced by Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General and further submitted that no person has a right to force himself upon a woman, therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

8. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana , (2023) 7 SCC 711 : 2023 SCC OnLin