'Nuanced distinction between consensual intimacy, rape,' Ktka HC quashes rape case [Read Order]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has said that there is the nuanced distinction between consensual intimacy and the grave allegation of rape, as it allowed a plea by 23-year-old youth to quash an FIR lodged after sexual assault upon a girl, he acquainted with dating App in Bengaluru.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said, a relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in the clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law.

While quashing the proceedings on charges of rape, the court said, "If the present prosecution were permitted to meander into a trial, it would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law."

As per details, the petitioner and complainant woman had got acquainted through a dating app ‘Bumble’ for over a year and later got back in touch on Instagram. They continued to exchange photographs, videos and chats and decided to meet in person.

On August 11, 2024, they met over lunch and decided to take a room in Oyo hotel.

According to the complainant, though she withdrew her consent midway, the petitioner nevertheless had physical intimacy with her. The next day, the petitioner dropped the complainant back at her apartment.

On August 13, 2024, after feeling certain physical discomfort, the complainant got herself examined at a hospital and realised that she was a victim of sexual assault. The same day, she filed a complaint with the police. After registering a crime for offence under section 64 of the BNS, for the commission of rape, the police arrested the petitioner and subsequently filed the charge sheet after investigation.

The petitioner challenged the charge sheet and subsequent proceedings, contending that the photographs and chat excerpts would clearly demonstrate the falsity of the claim made by the complainant.

The petitioner claimed, the investigating officer has deliberately not made these facts a part of the charge sheet. He filed a memo along with documents before the court.

Opposing the plea, the Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had indulged in sexual assault on the complainant. It was stated that BNS has the provision to punish in cases of sex on the promise of marriage. Though this is not a case of promise of marriage, whether it was consensual or not is a matter of trial and hence the petitioner should come out clean in a full-blown trial, the state argued.

After going through the material, the court observed that the chats would only indicate that the acts between the petitioner and complainant are all consensual.

The court also cited the Supreme Court judgments wherein the top court has nuanced the distinction between consensual intimacy and the grave allegations of rape.

[Read Order]

Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.