Consensual Sexual Relationship Not Licence For Man To Assault Woman: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Drop Case Against Circle Inspector

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an attempt to murder case registered against a police officer who is accused to have assaulted a woman with whom he was in a consensual relationship for several years.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said “I deem it appropriate to hold that consensual acts between the accused and the victim for having sexual relationship, can never become a licence to the man to assault the lady. The case at hand projects gross misogynist brutality upon the complainant.”

The court made these observations while partly allowing the petition filed by B Ashok Kumar, a Circle Inspector with the police department who is charged for Sections 376(2)(n), 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The complainant a social worker and wife of a police constable alleged that on 11-11-2021, she was picked up at 7.30 p.m. by the petitioner, driven into a hotel and there he forcibly had sex with her and assaulted her badly and dropped her at the Sagar Bus stop in the morning hours of 2.45 a.m. Following which she goes to the hospital and gets treatment for the injuries sustained out of the assault and registers the crime.

The petitioner seeking quashing of the case contended that he and the complainant were in a consensual act right from the year 2017 till 2022 and on those consensual acts, the complainant has gone on registering crimes. She had also registered proceedings under Section 138 of 5 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which the concerned Court has acquitted the petitioner.

Further, the allegations in the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet are so vague that they cannot meet any of the ingredients so alleged against the petitioner.

The complainant opposed the petition submitting that the consent of the complainant to have sexual relationship by the petitioner was obtained by force, fraud and deceit as the husband of the complainant was a constable and the petitioner could yield dominance over the constable to get his wife into the fold of sexual relationship.

The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The charge sheet appends to it several documents which are statements of individual witnesses. The wound certificate and the statements would clearly indicate that wounds are inflicted by the petitioner upon the complainant.

Findings:

The bench referred to the statement of witnesses as recorded by the police and said “it is the statement of the driver/constable who drove them that both of them came back to the car, sat and nothing untoward incident happened till that time, but suddenly squabble erupted between the two and the petitioner assaulted the complainant. The aftermath of the dropping is captured by one Ramesh, the driver who took the complainant to the hospital. It is his statement that the complainant was bleeding and when he asked as to how this happened, she narrated the story that is narrated in the statement. All this is corroborated with the wound certificate.”

It added “The treatment is on 12-11-2021 at 4.20 a.m. at McGann Hospital, Shimoga. Therefore, the link in the chain of events would undoubtedly pin the petitioner down for the allegations that are made in the complaint and summarized in the charge sheet.”

It further said, “The relationship even physical between the complainant and the petitioner, as found in the material placed before the Court, would clearly indicate that they were at times peaceful and they were at times marred with violent acts on the part of the petitioner. But, insofar as the offence of rape is concerned, the acts between the complainant and the petitioner were not out of fraud, force or deceit as is alleged. They were all consensual acts.”

The court held “Therefore, such consensual acts between the petitioner and the complainant, for four long years, cannot be termed as offence of repeated rape, though the projection, is that consent was obtained by fraud, dominance or otherwise. The consent cannot be obtained by these methods for four long years.”

The court said that what has happened on 11-11-2021 which forms the fulcrum of the lis, and the statements recorded thereon would clearly indicate "violent behaviour of the petitioner upon the complainant, be it for offence of attempt to murder under Section 37 307 of the IPC or assault as obtaining under the provisions" . "They are all met albeit, prima facie, in the case at hand", it added.

The court said “The unmistakable inference would be obliteration of offence of rape alleged against the petitioner as obtaining under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC as, consensual acts between the two cannot become a rape. The other offences are all to be sustained, as any amount of consensus cannot hand over a man with the licence to assault a woman. Therefore, all the offences other than the one of repeated rape, are sustained and the petitioner has to be tried, and trial is a must.”

The court hence partly allowed the plea while obliterating the "offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC" against the petitioner. 

Appearance: Advocate P Prasanna Kumar a/w Advocate Sandesh P Nadiger for Petitioner. HCGP Harish Ganapathi for R1.

Advocate Rekha M for Advocate H C Shivaramu for R2.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 25

Case Title: B Ashok Kumar AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3594 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order