Bombay High Court: Petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of a case registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, for the offences punishable under Sections , , , and of the (‘IPC’). During pendency of the petition, a charge sheet was filed by the police officials on 26-09-2023 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Karad. Petitioner was given the liberty to amend the petition to challenge the proceedings which were now assailed. The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ., opined that the relationship between petitioner and the complainant in respect of indulging in sexual activities was not consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition.
Background
Respondent 2, the complainant submitted that she had obtained Khulanama from her husband as per the practices of Muslim Religion and she resided with her four-year-old son. In 2022, petitioner came to live on rent next door to the complainant and gradually petitioner declared his love for her and promised to marry her. He demanded that they should indulge in sexual relationship, however, the complainant consistently refused for the same. The complainant further submitted that in July 2022, petitioner came to her house and threatened her that, if she refused to marry him, he would commit suicide, but ignoring her resistance and consistent refusal, he forced her for sexual relationship and raped her. Thereafter, during celebration of petitioner’s birthday, he again forcibly raped her.
The complainant made a specific allegation that petitioner forced her to indulge in unnatural sex with him. Thereafter, petitioner distanced himself from the complainant and started avoiding her and when she asked his parents and relatives regarding their marriage, they abused her and told her that, she belonged to a different caste and hence, there was no question of marriage between the parties. The family members of petitioner then abused, and petitioner also joined his relatives in abusing the complainant and threatened to kill her and her son. Thus, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the FIR did indicate an intimate relationship between the parties. However, the complainant had clearly alleged that petitioner had established sexual intercourse forcibly with her and without her consent, despite a relationship. The Court opined that a relationship between two adult individuals did not justify sexual assault by one on his partner.
The Court opined that a relationship might be consensual at the beginning, but the same state might not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist. The Court noted that the allegations in the present FIR did not demonstrate continuous consent on the part of the complainant. The allegations demonstrated that even though the complainant was desirous of being married to a petitioner, she was not inclined to indulge in a sexual relationship with him.
The Court opined that the present case was not one of those cases where there was a bonafide intent on petitioner’s part to marry the complainant on the assurance of which the parties enjoyed intimate relationship but unfortunately the same did not fructify in a marital tie. The Court stated that in cases such as the present case, the Supreme Court distinguished between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused, i.e, in cases of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecrutrix and would have cheated and deceived her by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas, in case of breach of promise, one could not deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him from fulfilling his promise.
The Court opined that the allegation in the FIR prima facie constitutes the commission of the alleged offence, and the defense of petitioner could not be tested at this stage. The Court dismissed the petition and opined that the relationship between petitioner and the complainant in respect of indulging in sexual activities was not consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2023, decided on 28-06-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Abhang Suryawanshi i/b Narayan Rokade
For the Respondents: Anamika Malhotra, Addl. PP; Mahindra Deshmukh, Counsel
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .