The court established that a consensual relationship cannot be criminalized post-breakup, emphasizing the necessity of consent in allegations of sexual offences.

J U D G M E N T

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 16.10.2023 in CRL.M.C 6066 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” for short) whereby Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMtAhe High Court refused to quash FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated Date: 2024.11.20 Reason:

29.09.2019 registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“ IPC ” for short), the appellant is before this Court.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC . As per the said FIR, the complainant alleged that she was living with her brother and working at the Vodafone Call Centre. The appellant herein came in contact with the complainant in the year 2017 and they had a conversation on call and got to know each other. They first met in November 2017 and again in April 2018 at a park. The complainant further stated that in January 2019, the appellant found her address and had a forceful sexual relationship with her. It was further stated that the appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual relationship with her. However, the appellant later denied to marry the complainant by giving excuses. Further, the appellant also refused that the complainant should meet his parents.

4. The complainant has also given her statement under Section 164 CrPC. In the said statement, apart from reiterating the said allegations, she further stated that the appellant used to take the complainant to his room in Chhatarpur and have physical relationship with her. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet dated 22.11.2019 was filed.

5. Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings, the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing CRL.M.C. No.6066 of 2019 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2023, the High Court dismissed the said petition filed by the appellant. The High Court noted that the alleged relationship between the parties was not the outcome of consent on the part of the complainant and that allegations made in the FIR and in the statement made under Section 164 CrPC were sufficient to constitute alleged offences against the appellant. Hence the instant appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned ASG for the respondent State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the contents of the FIR and MLC report do not disclose any cognizable offence. The parties were in a consensual relationship. The institution of the FIR was with the ulterior motive of retribution due to a personal vengeance. There are umpteen contradictions in the FIR, MLC report and the statement made by the complainant under Section 164 CrPC. It was submitted that in the FIR dated 29.09.2019, the complainant stated that the appellant committed alleged forceful sexual acts on her in January 2019. However, in the MLC report dated 28.09.2019, she alleged that the incident of rape happened one week before the MLC. Further in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that the appellant used to take her to his room in Chhatarpur and forcibly committed rape on her. Hence, there is inconsistency in her statements. Therefore, it was prayed that this Court may set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant herein arising out of FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019. Per contra

8. , the learned ASG for the respondent-State contended that a prima facie case has been made out and that the statements made under Section 164 CrPC are sufficient to constitute offences levelled against the appellant. Both FIR and MLC reports state that the appellant had a physica