Merely Because Love Wanes Away With Time, Consensual Acts Between Two Adults Cannot Be Called Rape: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that consensual acts between two adults who were in love over a long period of six years will not attract the offence of rape.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a man and quashed the case registered for offences punishable under sections 376 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court said, “The duration of relationship between the two which was founded on love was for a period of six years, merely because love wanes away by efflux of time, either at the hands of the complainant or the accused, it would not mean that all consensual acts done between the two could be dubbed as rape.”

As per the complainant, the accused was running a mobile service and recharge centre. In 2012 the complainant came in contact with the petitioner, as every now and then the complainant used to visit the shop of the petitioner to get her pre-paid sim re-charged.

It was alleged that in the complainant registered on 03-07-2018, the accused had sexual intercourse over the period and from 2018, he began to avoid answering calls of the complainant and he has got engaged with some other girl. Pursuant to the complaint police investigate and file a chargesheet.

The petitioner argued that the relationship between the two was completely consensual and that whatever happened has happened not for a day, but for over six years. The complainant has also harassed the petitioner and demanded Rs 10 lakhs, following which a complaint against her was registered by the petitioner.

The complaint opposed the plea saying that the accused had indulged in a sexual relationship with the complainant only on the pretext of marriage which was from the outset false. Therefore, it becomes a false promise of marriage.

Findings:

The bench on going through the complaint notes that the complainant herself states that for about six years they have had a physical relationship. When the petitioner himself divulges the news that he has engaged with someone else, the complaint comes to be registered.

Following this it held “In the considered view of this Court, such relationship would not amount to a rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC, as it is the case of the complainant herself that they were in love and if they were in love, every act in the six years period cannot but be termed to be consensual.”

It added “Whether it is on pretext of marriage or otherwise, the acts between the petitioner and the respondent were purely consensual. In the considered view of this Court, the offence under Section 376 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner, which cannot be permitted to be tried.”

Allowing the petition the court said, “Finding no offences being driven home by the prosecution, permitting further trial against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Appearance: Advocate N.Tejas for petitioner.

HCGP Harish Ganapathi for R1.

Advocate H. Sunil Kumar for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

Case Title: XXX AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7704 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order