The Karnataka High Court partially granted a petition filed by Mallikarjun Desai Goudar and quashed charges against him under sections 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 406, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The charges were levelled against him after the victim accused him of rape when he refused to marry her after being in a relationship for over five years. However, the court upheld the charges against him under sections 323 and 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The judgment was passed by a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed rape charges against Mallikarjun Desai Goudar, who was accused by a woman he had been in a relationship with for over five years after he refused to marry her. The court upheld the charges against him under sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, but quashed the charges of rape, stalking, criminal intimidation, and breach of trust. The court reasoned that in this case, the woman had given her consent for the physical relationship over a period of five years, which cannot be considered rape under Section 375 of the IPC, taking into account the length of their relationship and the acts committed during this time.
According to the victim, she and the accused had entered into a relationship that turned sexual. The victim claimed that the accused had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage but later refused to marry her, alleging that her consent had been obtained through false promises. Subsequently, a case was registered against the accused and the police filed a charge sheet after investigation.
The accused argued that he and the victim were in a consensual relationship and that they had planned to get married. However, due to caste differences, the marriage could not take place despite his efforts. He further contended that the victim’s allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage were false and that it was a consensual act.
The complainant opposed the plea, contending that if consent is given based on a false promise of marriage, it would amount to rape as it is not given freely.
The bench observed that the complaint stated that the petitioner and complainant were in a romantic relationship for five years and had known each other for 12 years.
After analyzing the complaint and the statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the court found that the accused and the complainant had been in a romantic relationship for a period of five years and had engaged in sexual activity several times during this period.
The court noted that the accused had made efforts to marry the complainant, but the marriage did not materialize due to caste issues. Although the complaint initially alleged that the accused had forced himself upon the complainant, the court found that the relationship was consensual and the force could not have continued for such a long period of time. Therefore, the court held that the accused could not be charged with rape under Section 375 of the IPC, and consequently, Section 376 of the IPC.
The court dismissed the complainant’s argument that the petitioner obtained her consent on the basis of a false promise of marriage, and hence, it amounts to rape.
It referred to a Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Ramachandra Vs State of Kerala and said that for a period of five years, it cannot be concluded that the woman’s consent was taken all along against her will.
Therefore, the bench concluded that it must use its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the crime registered against the petitioner for the offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC, or else it will become an abuse of the process of law.
Source: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-high-court-rape-allegation-consensual-relationship-false-promise-of-marriage-section-376-of-ipc-five-years-long-relationship-223432?from-login=807557
