Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 39469
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
.... .... .... .... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 15015 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri D.R. Ravishankar, Sri Mayur D. Bhanu
For the Respondents: Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, Smt. Laksha Kalappa B.
Consent in sexual relations must involve a clear understanding of intent; mere breach of promise does not equate to rape if the promise was genuine but unfulfilled.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 376 and 420 - Quashing of FIR - FIR registered against the petitioner for offences of rape and cheating based on alleged false promise of marriage - Relationship between the parties was consensual over three years - No concrete evidence of a false promise to marry to support allegations - Consent of the complainant was neither coerced nor a misconception of fact - Importance of intent behind the promise of marriage highlighted - FIR quashed due to absence of prima facie case. (Paras 6, 10, 12, 13, 18)
(B) Consent in sexual relationships - Difference between consensual relations and coerced relations based on false promises - Legal distinctions made concerning consent obtained under a misconception of fact versus genuine consent - A promise made without malicious intent does not constitute rape. (Paras 24, 25, 28)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing an fir requires understanding the factual basis. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments revolve around consent and promise of marriage. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court examines relationship dynamics and consent. (Para 7 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. whether rape occurred hinges on misconceptions regarding consent. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final conclusion emphasizes quashing fir due to lack of offense. (Para 18) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question investigation in crime No.203/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
2. Heard Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior counsel for Sri. Mayur D. Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Laksha Kalappa B., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The second respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 02.06.2024, alleging commission of the offence of rape against the petitioner on the ground of promise of marriage. It is the case of the complainant that her marriage was in doldrums and at that point in time, the petitioner befriended the complainant and for over three years had physical relationship on the ground of promise of marriage to the complainant. It transpires that the talks of marriage broke down and the petitioner refusing to marry the complainant resulted in the complaint being registered against the petitioner. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that all the three years of relationship between the petitioner and the complainant were founded on consensus, as the acts alleged were all consensual acts. At no point in time, the petitioner had promised that he would marry the complainant, as the complainant was already married. He would therefore contend that the offence of rape or cheating cannot be met in the case at hand.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - complainant would vehemently refute the submission to contend that the acts though were on consensus, but it was on the ground that the petitioner would marry the complainant at a later point in time. The promise was breached and therefore, it becomes a case of exploitation by the petitioner of the complainant. She would further contend that the petitioner has also taken lots of money again on the pretext of marrying her.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hands over a cash of Rs.2,00,000/- that he had taken from the complainant and same is accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - complainant on behalf of the complainant.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the petitioner and complainant is what is averred in the complaint itself. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
"To Police Inspector Mr. Chikaswamy
Basaveshwar Nagar Bengaluru - 560 079.
02 June, 2024
From
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
Respected Sir, Subject: Request to register complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX.
Respected Sir I am writing to you to register my complaint of Rape on pretext of marriage [376], cheating [420], Blackmail [383/384] against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX.
The above mentioned person was known to my husband. He befriended me eventually. By this my marriage had brokendown. The above mentioned person knew this and he told me to leave my husband and get married to him. He also told me that he will definitely marry me if I have a physical affair with him. Only after he promised me of marriage, I agreed to continue with him. I constantly asked him if he will honour his promise of marriage to which he agre
