BENGALURU: A consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant-woman is not a licence for the former to assault the latter, the high court has observed.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, however, quashed the offences of rape and cheating invoked against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the woman are residents of Bengaluru and worked together in a software company.They were in a relationship for over five years.
In July 2022, the woman lodged a police complaint alleging that the man had a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage but breached it later. Following this, Annapoorneshwari Nagar police registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 376 (punishment for rape), 323 (causing hurt), 417 (punishment for cheating), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
FIR challenged
The man challenged the FIR and argued that in February 2020, the woman had filed a similar complaint against another person alleging that he also had indulged in sexual acts on the promise of marriage and the same was pending. He claimed that the woman has the habit of filing criminal complaints against different men. On the other hand, the woman remained absent.
After perusing the material on record, Justice Nagaprasanna noted the rape and cheating charges cannot be sustained in the wake of consensual relationship.
“The facts obtained in the case are considered on the bedrock of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Shambhu Karwar vs State of Uttar Pradesh case. The offence of rape is loosely laid against the petitioner and if further investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner as is continuing against the other man, 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 judge said.
As regards to assault and criminal intimidation charges, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that a perusal of the wound certificate would indicate that there has been multiple bruises on the body of the complainant.
“The bruises are on account of assault allegedly by the accused-petitioner. Therefore, while the offence under section 376 of the IPC or 417 of the IPC cannot be made out, the offence under Sections 323 (causing hurt) and 504 of the IPC are prima facie met,” the judge observed, while permitting police to investigate those charges.
The petitioner can avail of such remedy as is available in law if the investigation leads to filing of the chargesheet against him, the judge added, while partly allowing the petition.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, however, quashed the offences of rape and cheating invoked against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the woman are residents of Bengaluru and worked together in a software company.They were in a relationship for over five years.
In July 2022, the woman lodged a police complaint alleging that the man had a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage but breached it later. Following this, Annapoorneshwari Nagar police registered a case for offences punishable under Sections 376 (punishment for rape), 323 (causing hurt), 417 (punishment for cheating), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
FIR challenged
The man challenged the FIR and argued that in February 2020, the woman had filed a similar complaint against another person alleging that he also had indulged in sexual acts on the promise of marriage and the same was pending. He claimed that the woman has the habit of filing criminal complaints against different men. On the other hand, the woman remained absent.
After perusing the material on record, Justice Nagaprasanna noted the rape and cheating charges cannot be sustained in the wake of consensual relationship.
“The facts obtained in the case are considered on the bedrock of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Shambhu Karwar vs State of Uttar Pradesh case. The offence of rape is loosely laid against the petitioner and if further investigation is permitted to continue against the petitioner as is continuing against the other man, 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 judge said.
As regards to assault and criminal intimidation charges, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that a perusal of the wound certificate would indicate that there has been multiple bruises on the body of the complainant.
“The bruises are on account of assault allegedly by the accused-petitioner. Therefore, while the offence under section 376 of the IPC or 417 of the IPC cannot be made out, the offence under Sections 323 (causing hurt) and 504 of the IPC are prima facie met,” the judge observed, while permitting police to investigate those charges.
The petitioner can avail of such remedy as is available in law if the investigation leads to filing of the chargesheet against him, the judge added, while partly allowing the petition.
