Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8935
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. NATARAJAN, J
DEEKSHITH GOWDA. K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 9248/2022
SRI. SACHIN .B.S., ADVOCATE; SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2
Consensual sexual relations between adults do not constitute sexual assault under IPC, and false promises to marry do not attract criminal liability.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 498A, 504, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Petition for quashing FIR - Allegations of sexual assault and dowry demands - Court found that consensual sex between adults does not constitute sexual assault under Section 375 - False promise to marry does not attract Section 376 - FIR quashed for offences under Section 376 and Section 3 of DP Act, but investigation allowed for other offences. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 11)
(B) Legal principles regarding consent - The court reaffirmed that consensual sexual relations between adults, even resulting in pregnancy, do not amount to sexual assault if both parties were in a relationship. (Paras 8, 10)
(C) Issues of mental harassment and dowry demands - The court noted that the petitioner’s actions post-marriage constituted harassment and potential dowry demands, necessitating investigation under relevant sections. (Paras 9, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the allegations of sexual assault were unfounded, the claims of mental harassment and dowry demands warranted further investigation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR could be quashed based on the consensual nature of the relationship and if the allegations of dowry demands warranted investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that consensual relations do not equate to sexual assault, and a false promise to marry does not constitute a criminal offence under IPC.
Result: The FIR against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of IPC and under Section 3 of DP Act is hereby quashed.
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C . for quashing the FIR in Crime No.32 of 2022 registered by Kadaba Police Station, Puttur Rural Circle, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 76 , 498A , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant - respondent No.2 who is the victim lodged the complaint in the police station on 07.04.2022 alleging that the petitioner is said to be the relative and he came in contact with her and both of them fell in love and he is said to have sexually assaulted the victim against her will, due to which, she became pregnant.
Thereafter, she requested the petitioner to marry her. The petitioner refused to marry and made an allegation that he is not the cause for her pregnancy and that he wants to perform DNA test to know whether he is the biological father of the child or not. Subsequently, on 05.08.2021 she delivered a male child and thereafter at the intervention of family members of the petitioner and respondent No.2, on 15.11.2021, their marriage was performed and it was registered. Subsequently, the accused started harassing her mentally stating that the child is not belonging to him and he was suspecting her character. It is also alleged that the petitioner always used to continuously harass her by telling that he is an army man and he could have received more money as dowry and rich people were ready to give dowry for him and therefore, he demanded dowry from her parents. Therefore, she has filed the complaint. After registration of FIR, the police started investigation, which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and respondent No.2 was major in age and they fell in love and there was consensual sex between them.
Therefore, the question of attracting Section 375 of IPC does not arise in order to say that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC . There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Even prior to the marriage or at the time of marriage, there is no demand of dowry. Therefore, there is no physical assault by the petitioner. Hence, conducting investigation is nothing but abuse of process of law.
Hence, he prays for quashing the FIR.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that even if Section 376 of IPC is not attracted, the accused was harassing her physically and mentally for demand of dowry, abusing her in filthy language and threatening with dire consequences, which attracts Sections 498A , 504 , 506 of IPC and he is continuously harassing the complainant by suspecting her character and birth of child and disputing paternity. Therefore, the matter requires investigation.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR, which reveals that admittedly, the age of the victim was 21 years at the time of lodging the complaint. As per the complainant, she fell in love with the petitioner and subsequently they had sex, due to which, she became pregnant. Thereafter, she requested the petitioner to marry, for which, he refused. He also suspected the paternity. Thereafter, she delivered a child on 05.08.2021. Subsequently, the accused married her.
8. On perusal of the said averments, which reveals that both the petitioner and the respondent are adults having consensual sex between them, due to which, she became pregnant. It is not the case where the accused promised her to marry and thereafter, he committed sexual assault, but they are in love with each other and they had consensual sex, due to which, she became pregnant. Thereafter, she req
