“Sailing In Two Boats At The Same Time”: Karnataka HC Quashes FIR U/s. 376 IPC By Woman Simultaneously Accusing Two Men Of Rape On False Promise Of Marriage
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC by a woman against a man she accused of rape on the false promise of marriage. The Court noted that the woman had filed a similar complaint against another man, describing the allegations as "verbatim similar" and remarked that she was "sailing in two boats at the same time."
The Bench permitted the investigation into allegations of assault (Section 323 of the IPC) and intentional insult (Section 504 of the IPC), while obliterating the offences under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC on the score that “any amount of consensus or a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant will not become a license to the accused to assault a woman.” The Court remarked that the complainant and petitioner had been in a consensual relationship for seven years.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “Another factor that would become clear is that the complainant was sailing in two boats at the same time. Therefore, the offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, on such consensual acts on the specious plea that it was on promise of marriage and later, the promise of marriage has been breached, are all on the face of it false. It was a relationship, a consensual relationship. The complainant appears to be in the habit of indulging in such acts.”
Advocate Venkatesh P Dalwai represented the petitioner, while HCGP Thejesh P. appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was entirely consensual. During the same period, the complainant had also filed a similar complaint against another man, accusing him of indulging in sexual acts on the promise of marriage. The pattern, according to the petitioner, suggested that the complainant was habitual in filing such complaints.
The Court noted the identical allegations of rape against two individuals by the complainant, and stated, “If the allegation in the complaint made against X is juxtaposed to the subject complaint, it becomes unmistakably clear that it is verbatim similar.”
However, the Court granted permission for an investigation into the charges under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC, clarifying that consensual relationships did not give license to a man to commit assault. The Bench stated, "Any amount of consensus or a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant will not become a license to the accused to assault a woman.”
“If further investigation is permitted to continue against the present petitioner as is continuing against Kamalesh Choudhary as afore-quoted, it would be permitting the complainant to sail in two different complaints at the same time. Therefore, the offence of rape could not have been laid against the petitioner. It needs to be obliterated,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the petition.
Cause Title: S v. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:20421)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Venkatesh P Dalwai
Respondents: HCGP Thejesh P.; Advocate Balu P.
