Fading Away Of Intimacy After Six Years Of Consensual Sexual Intercourse Cannot Be Construed As Rape U/s. 375 IPC: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has observed that fading away of intimacy after six years of consensual sexual intercourse cannot mean that it would be rape under Section 375 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).
The Court was deciding the criminal petitions seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Senior Civil Judge against the petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held, “It is not one, two, three, four or five, but six years of consensual physical/sexual relationship between the petitioner and the complainant after having met through social media platform. The complaint narrates in minute details as to what has transpired between the two, for all the six years. The allegation that is made later is, from 27-12-2019 intimacy between the two waned away or faded away. Fading away of the intimacy after six years of consensual acts of sexual intercourse cannot mean that it would become ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC.”
The Bench further observed that there were consensual acts from day one till the year 2019 and that the period is six long years.
Advocate T.I. Abdulla appeared on behalf of the petitioner while HCGP K.P. Yashodha and Advocate Nataraju T. appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The complainant came in contact with the petitioner in the year 2013 through Facebook, a social media platform. They became friends and the petitioner was staying close to the complainant’s house. It was the narrative of the complainant, that she was always taken to the house of the petitioner on the score that he was a very good chef and would prepare delicious food. Every time she used to go to his house, drink beer and had sexual intercourse and this continued till 2019, for about 6 years. Later the complainant alleged that the petitioner used her on the promise of marriage and after 2019, lost all intimacy.
The complainant on the ground that the petitioner breached promise of marriage and had physical relationship with her, registered a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. Based upon the said complaint, the petitioner was arrested, taken to judicial custody and was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the complainant registered another complaint verbatim similar to what was registered at Bengaluru and it became a crime for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 323, 114, 417 r/w 34 of the IPC. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court against the filing of charge sheets in both these cases.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “… it cannot but be construed that it would not be a rape for it to become punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. If further proceedings are permitted to continue as observed hereinabove, it would run foul of plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue.”
The Court further noted that the complainant after having consensual relationship with the petitioner registered repeated crimes on the very same set of facts with the same allegations, one at Bengaluru and another at Davengere which becomes a classic illustration of an abuse of the process of law.
“What is required to be further taken note of is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the complainant is in the habit of registering crimes against several people. He has quoted one such instance. The complainant through face book befriends, one Dhanush and had physical relationship with him and registers a complaint against the said person before the Airport Police, Bengaluru for the very same offence as is alleged against the petitioner i.e., having sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage and its breach”, added the Court.
The Court held that the complainant is seeking relationships with people on social media platforms and later registering crimes against them, on the same allegations. It said that if trial 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.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Cause Title- Girinath B. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
