The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) for rape registered against an advocate on a complaint by a woman who alleged that he had sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage [XXXX v. State of Karnataka].

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the allegations in the complaint disclosed a consensual relationship between two adults, which could not be characterised as rape merely on the ground of an alleged false promise of marriage.

The judge further noted that despite asserting that her earlier relationship with her former husband had ended, the material on record indicated that the complainant had given birth to a child and continued to project herself as his wife in official records.

Thus, the Court observed that the complaint lacked credibility and bore a “strong imprint of manipulation.”

“Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, the documents and events noticed hereinabove unmistakably disclose that the complaint is not a genuine criminal grievance, but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution. This, therefore, is a fit case where even proceedings for malicious prosecution may be warranted,” the Court observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the accused advocate seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him and his family members in connection with the case.

As per the complaint, the woman became acquainted with the accused in connection with a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged that in 2022, the accused sent her a friend request on Instagram, which she accepted, following which their interactions developed into a friendship and subsequently into a physical relationship.

It was further alleged that in July 2023, the accused visited her residence and expressed his willingness to marry her, after which their physical relationship continued on the assurance of marriage.

The accused said that the complainant had earlier married another man, but the marriage was annulled in 2016. However, it was found that she gave birth to a child from the same marriage in 2020. It was also pointed out that she had another child from an earlier marriage.

It was further pointed out that in 2023, the complainant had filed a case under Section 13(3) of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, in which she described herself as the wife of her ex-husband in the cause title.

The Court said,

"When all these facts, borne out from official records, are considered cumulatively, it becomes difficult to comprehend, far less accept, how the complainant could credibly assert that she consented to sexual relationship on a “promise of marriage”, when she appears to have been in a subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association, and is also mother of 2 children, one about 13 years old and the other about 4 years."

While quashing the FIR, the Court observed that it was a fit case for malicious prosecution.

"However, this Court for reasons best left unstated, restrains itself and holds its hands from issuing such direction. Wherefore, this Court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice."

Advocate Abhishek Kumar appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Asma Kouser appeared for the State.

Advocate Akshay R Huddar appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]