The distinction between consensual relations and rape lies in the perception and intention behind consent; the breach of a promise to marry does not equate to misconception if the relationship is consensual.

ORDER

1. This application, under section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Shivpuri Kotwali, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for offence punishable under sections 376, 506 of IPC and under sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all consequential proceedings arising out of it.

2. Prosecution story, in short, is that prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 14.2.2024 alleging that she is aged about 21 years and for the last five years was working in a shop, namely, Shri Ganesh Hosiery, Tekri. Therefore, she was on talking terms with the applicant who is the owner of shop in question. About 2-3 years back, applicant started claiming that he is in love with her and wants to marry her. She also started liking applicant and therefore physical relations were developed between them. After sometime, when she requested applicant to marry her then applicant started avoiding the same. Thereafter, she refused to have physical relationship with him. On 15.12.2023 at about 10:30 in the morning, she was working in the shop. At that time, applicant came and requested to have physical relation with him. It was replied by prosecutrix that she does not want to keep any relationship and she would indulge in physical relationship only after marriage, however, applicant forcibly committed rape on her and thereafter clarified that he will never marry her and complainant may do whatever she wants. It was further alleged that applicant is aware of the fact that prosecutrix belongs to scheduled caste. Since applicant had committed rape on her, therefore, she got afraid and did not lodge the FIR. On 14.2.2024, she informed the entire incident to her mother and accordingly, FIR was lodged.

3. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. In her statement she stated that she was working in the shop of applicant about 2-3 years back. Applicant claimed that he has started liking her and he wants to marry a girl like her. Accordingly, friendship was developed between applicant and prosecutrix and both of them started talking to each other and they were also visiting various places. During this period, physical relationship was also developed. Prosecutrix requested applicant to marry her, then he avoided the same. Later on, she insisted that she would talk to him only when he marries her. On 15.12.2023 at about 10:00 to 10:30 am while she was working in the shop of applicant, then applicant came there and caught hold of her and took her to a street inside the shop and forcibly committed rape on her. When she requested him to marry her, he scolded that he would not marry her and she may do whatever she wants and in case she insists anymore then he would get her killed. Thereafter, she has left her job. She narrated the incident to her mother and accordingly, FIR has been lodged.

4. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. are considered then it is clear that the same can be bifurcated in following parts i.e. :--

(i) That, the prosecutrix was working in the shop of applicant and with passage of time friendship developed between them. They started visiting various places and during this period physical relationship took place voluntarily.

(ii) When applicant avoided marriage, then she insisted that she would not indulge in physical relationship, unless and until marriage is performed.

(iii) In spite of her resistance, she was raped on 15.12.2023.

5. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether t