New Delhi : The Supreme Court has refused to quash a rape case against a man, saying that whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to continue a relationship, the character of such relationship when it was started will not continue to prevail.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar said: “In the instant case, we do not think the relationship had remained consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold. 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 apex court, considering the nature of the allegations made by the complainant, directed masking of the woman's identity in all records pertaining to the case before it and the high court.
The bench dismissed a petition filed by Rajkumar against the Karnataka High Court's order of March 30, 2023 which junked his plea to quash the FIR registered against him in July, 2022. “We, accordingly, decline to interfere with the impugned order and the present petition shall stand dismissed. The interim order, if any, shall stand dissolved”, said the bench.
The apex court noted that the petitioner and the woman were in a relationship but such relationship soured later, and there were various allegations and cross allegations against each other.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on a recent judgment of the apex court in the case of Shambhu Kharwar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., to contend that consensual relationship cannot give rise to an offence of rape.
“We accept this view taken by a coordinate bench of this court but so far as the subject proceeding is concerned, the allegations do not demonstrate continued consent on the part of the complainant”, said the apex court, in an order passed on March 5.
The bench said 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 shows their unwillingness to continue with such a relationship, the character of such a relationship like it was when started may not continue to prevail”, it said.
The bench noted that it has been taken through the various offending acts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel contended that these were all a counterblast to the petitioner’s complaint of blackmailing/extortion against the complainant.
“In this factual backdrop, it cannot be held that the FIR does not disclose any offence. The allegations cannot be held to be inherently improbable, which is one of the grounds for quashing an FIR, as held in the judgment of this court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors (1992)”, said the bench.
The woman had filed the complaint alleging commission of offences against her under the provisions of Sections 342, 354, 366, 376(2)(n), 312, 201, 420, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66(E), 67 and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Read More
