Intimate Relationship Between Adults Does Not Justify Sexual Assault On Partner: Bombay High Court While Refusing To Quash Rape Case

“A relationship between two adult individuals does not justify sexual assault by one on his partner”, the Bombay High Court observed while refusing to quash a rape case filed by a woman against her boyfriend.

A division bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR and the subsequent charge sheet filed against the petitioner observing –

“The Complainant has clearly alleged that, the Petitioner had established sexual intercourse forcibly with her and without her consent, despite a relationship…it is trite that 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 indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as 'consensual' ceases to exist. The allegations in the present F.I.R. do not demonstrate a continuous consent on the part of the complainant.”

The petitioner is booked for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC, registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara.

The complainant's case was that after her divorce she was living with her four-year-old son when the petitioner moved in next door on May 25, 2022, and became acquainted with her. She claimed that they began chatting on mobile phones, and their relationship gradually became intimate. She said that the petitioner declared his love and promised to marry her, insisting on a sexual relationship, which she consistently refused.

According to the complainant, in July 2022, the petitioner threatened to commit suicide if she did not marry him and raped her. He allegedly raped her again on two occasions despite her resistance and promised to marry her after securing a job. She also stated that the petitioner borrowed money from her multiple times and did not repay it.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioner forced her into unnatural sex. When she approached his family regarding their marriage, they abused her, stating that she belonged to a different caste and threatened to kill her and her son, she alleged.

Advocate Abhang Suryawanshi for the petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual. He claimed that the complainant was already married and that negated the complainant's story about the false promise to marry. He submitted that the marriage between the petitioner (Hindu) and the complainant (Muslim) was unlikely due to their different religions.

He also highlighted a 13-month delay in filing the FIR, arguing that it undermined the credibility of the allegations. He contended that consensual sexual relations between adults should not be construed as rape unless consent was fraudulently obtained.

Advocate Mahindra Deshmukh for the complainant argued that the medico-legal examination report corroborated the complainant's allegations of forcible sexual intercourse. Additional Public Prosecutor Anamika Malhotra supported the complainant's case.

The court observed that though the FIR indicated an intimate relationship between the parties, the complainant had made a clear allegation of forced sexual intercourse. The court emphasized that a consensual relationship at the beginning does not remain so if one partner later refuses to continue the sexual relationship.

The allegations suggested the complainant was not inclined to indulge in a sexual relationship with the petitioner despite her desire to marry him, the court observed. The case, according to the court, is not one where there was a genuine intent on the part of the petitioner to marry the complainant, on the assurance of which the parties enjoyed an intimate relationship, but which did not fructify in a marital tie.

“The Complainant alleges specific instances where the Petitioner has forcibly and without her consent established sexual relationship with her. She contends specific instances of her rejection of advances by the Petitioner. We are of the view that, the allegations in the F.I.R. prima-facie constitute the commission of the alleged offense. The defense of the Petitioner cannot be tested at this stage”, the court held.

The court relied on Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, underscoring that in cases of sexual assault, the victim's testimony should not be viewed with scepticism requiring corroboration.

Therefore, the court dismissed the petition stating, “We do not think that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Complainant in respect of indulging in sexual activities was consensual to justify quashing of the criminal Complaint at the threshold.”

Case details to uploaded shortly.