"Fading Away Of Intimacy" After 6 Yrs Of Consensual Sex Not Rape: Karnataka High Court
“Fading away of the intimacy after six years of consensual acts of sexual intercourse cannot mean that it would become ingredients of Section 375 [Rape] of the IPC,” the Karnataka High Court observed recently.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her live-in partner whom she had befriended on Facebook. It added,“They...
“Fading away of the intimacy after six years of consensual acts of sexual intercourse cannot mean that it would become ingredients of Section 375 [Rape] of the IPC,” the Karnataka High Court observed recently.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her live-in partner whom she had befriended on Facebook. It added,
“They were consensual acts from day one and consensual acts till 27-12-2019. The period is six long years. Therefore, 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 a plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the issue.”
The petitioner Girinath B had approached the court seeking to quash two proceedings initiated against him at Bengaluru for offences punishable under sections 417 and 420 of the IPC. The other proceedings were registered at Davangere for offences under sections 376(2)(n), 506, 504, 323, 114, 417 r/w 34 of the IPC, on the same set of facts.
The petitioner argued that he met the complainant on Facebook and they were in a live in relationship for 6 years, up to 2019 and then the complainant cooked up a story that she was used physically on the promise of marriage for all the six years.
The bench went through the records and noted that there are two crimes registered on the same narration of facts with a sprinkling difference of an alleged incident dated April 16, 2021.
Referring to the charge sheets filed in both the cases the bench said, “Based upon same set of facts there are two charge sheets filed against the petitioner, one for offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC and the other for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 417, 506 and other offences against the parents of the petitioner, all for what is required to be noticed a live in relationship of 6 years between the petitioner and the complainant.”
Court said if further proceedings are permitted to be continued on such consensual acts of the complainant with the petitioner, it would on the face of it become an abuse of the process of law "as the length of relationship is what determines ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC.”
Court also took into account Petitioner's contention that complainant is in the habit of registering crimes against several people. It referred to the case against one Dhanush who was charged for similar offences by the complainant and was later acquitted by the trial court as she had turned hostile by reversing her stand.
Accordingly, the bench said, “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 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 12-12-2013 against the said accused Dhanush.”
Court said it's 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.
Case Title: Girinath B And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6863 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.6485 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
Date of Order: 28-07-2023
Appearance: Advocate T I Abdulla for Petitioner.
HCGP K P Yashodha for R1, R2.
Advocate Nataraju T for R3.