Complainant Seeking Relationships On Social Media Later Registers Crime On Same Allegation, A Classic Example Of Abuse Of Law: Karnataka HC

Interestingly, both the complaints lodged by the woman against the petitioner were on the same cause of action. The petitioner claimed that she was in a habit of luring people on social media and indulging in physical relationship with them. To establish the same, highlighted an illustration of a crime registered against one Dhanush in 2014 with whom the complainant had physical relationship and had tortured him, took money and settled the issue.

“The drawable inference from the said order is that on the very same allegation of promise of marriage there was sexual intercourse. When was the allegation is necessary to be noticed; at the same time when she had live in relationship with the petitioner, as the judgment itself narrates that Dhanush and the complainant had physical relationship from 2013 and she had lodged a complaint on December 12, 2013 against the said accused Dhanush. Therefore, it becomes a classic case where the complainant is seeking relationships with people on social media platforms and later register crimes against them, on the same allegations. If trial, in the cases at hand, is permitted to continue, it would be putting a premium on the activities of the complainant and her effort to abuse the process of law over and over”, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed in the matter.

Advocate T.I. Abdulla appeared for the petitioners, GP K.P. Yashodha, Advocate T Nataraju appeared for the respondents.

In the pertinent matter, the complainant-respondent filed a complaint under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC, while the other was for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 323, 114, 417 read with 34 of the IPC.

As per the averments, both the complainant and the petitioner lived close to each other. However, when the petitioner was enlarged on bail, after being arrested on the previous complaint, he started residing at Davangere, where the second complaint was lodged by the complainant.

The petitioners, however, vehemently contended that the complainant is in the habit of making friends with the affluent, and thereby extract money and blackmail them by registering crimes.

It was further alleged that she presented a made up story stating that she was taken advantage of physically for 6 years. Whereas the complainant and the petitioner met through face book, and were in a consensual live in relationship for 6 years, up to 2019.

Thus it was submitted that the petitioner has been maliciously prosecuted not in one forum but before two separate jurisdictions for the same facts which is an abuse of the process of law, all for a consensual live in relationship for 6 years.

The Court, therefore, considering the submissions made and the factual matrix, while referring to Mandar Deepak Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and another Criminal Appeal No.442 of 2022 decided on 27th July 2022 and other array of cases, held, “The afore-quoted were all cases where the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix was consensual and the allegation was that of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC for rape. If the afore-narrated facts are considered on the bedrock of elucidation by the Apex Court, it becomes a case where this Court has to step in, exercise its jurisdiction, under Section 482 of the CrPC, to obliterate the crime registered against the petitioner for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC inter alia, failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of law”.

Cause Title: Girinath B. v State of Karnataka