Relationship Which Was Consensual At Beginning Might Not Remain Same For All Time: Supreme Court Refuses To Quash Rape Case

“Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to continue with such relationship, the character of such relationship at it was when started will not continue to prevail.,” the Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar stated in their recent order.

In the present case, the accused/ present appellant was in a relationship with a complainant/ respondent that later turned sour. There were several allegations and cross-allegations against both parties. The present case revolves around the FIR filed by the respondent against the accused person. Several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including that of rape and criminal intimidation, as well as provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, were invoked against the accused.

Initially, the appellant approached the Karnataka High Court to have the FIR quashed. Having been unsuccessful there, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.

The appellant's Counsel argued that the respondent's acts were a counterblast to the former's complaint of blackmailing/extortion against the latter.

However, the Supreme Court observed that the allegations made in the FIR cannot be held to be inherently improbable. Pertinently, this is one of the grounds for quashing an FIR (State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.).

Moving forward, the Court agreed with the view that a consensual relationship cannot give rise to an offence of rape, as held in the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2022 INSC 827. However, in the same breath, the Court observed that the respondent's allegations do not demonstrate continued consent on her part.

Against this backdrop, the Court made the allegations mentioned above. Based on this, the Court opined that the relationship had not remained consensual to justify quashing the FIR. We also do not think that the complaint, in pursuance of which the FIR has been registered, lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged, the Court added.

Noting this, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned order. It also directed that appropriate steps be taken to mask the respondent's identity in future pending proceedings in all the concerned Courts.

Appearances : For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Manjunath K, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Muhammad Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Shaurya Rai, Adv.

Case Title : Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 214

Click here to read the judgment