Relationship May Be Consensual At The Beginning But The Same State May Not Remain So For All Time To Come: SC Refuses To Quash Rape Case
The Supreme Court observed that a relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come.
The Court observed thus in a case in which a man had approached the court under Article 136 of the Constitution after he was unsuccessful before the Karnataka High Court in having an FIR registered against him invalidated.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Sanjay Kumar said, “A relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to continue with such relationship, the character of such relationship at it was when started will not continue to prevail.”
Senior Advocate Vinay Navare represented the petitioner while AAG Muhammad Ali Khan represented the respondents.
In this case, the High Court had dismissed the petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). An FIR was made by the respondent, a lady with whom the petitioner appeared to have had relationship in the past. She had alleged commission of offences against her under the provisions of Sections 342, 354, 366, 376(2)(n), 312, 201, 420, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 66(E), 67, and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Such relationship between the two soured later and the High Court dealt with the nature of the allegations against the petitioner. The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the allegations were a counterblast to the petitioner’s complaint of blackmailing/extortion against the said lady.
The Supreme Court in the above regard noted, “In this factual back drop, it cannot be held that the FIR does not disclose any offence. The allegations cannot be held to be inherently improbable, which is one of the grounds for quashing an FIR, as held in the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 SCC Supl. (1) 335. … Mr. Navare, learned senior counsel, relied on a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2022 INSC 827 / 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032, to contend that consensual relationship cannot give rise to an offence of rape. We accept this view taken by a coordinate Bench of this Court but so far as the subject proceeding is concerned, the allegations do not demonstrate continued consent on the part of the complainant.”
The Court further said that the relationship had not remained consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold and that the complaint does not lack the ingredients of the offences alleged.
The Court, therefore, declined to interfere with the impugned order. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made by the lady, the Court directed to mask her identity in all records pertaining to this case before it and the High Court.
“… she shall be henceforth referred to as ‘Miss X’. … We also find that in the judgment of the High Court the identity of respondent No.2 has been disclosed. Let appropriate steps be taken to mask her identity in future in the pending proceeding in all the concerned Courts”, it also directed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- Rajkumar v. The State of Karnataka & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, Advocates Chinmay Deshpande, Manjunath K, and AOR Anirudh Sanganeria.
Respondent: AAG Muhammad Ali Khan, AOR V. N. Raghupathy, Advocates Manendra Pal Gupta, Omar Hoda, Uday Bhatia, Eesha Bakshi, Kamran Khan, AOR Namit Saxena, and Advocate Shaurya Rai.
