Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court ruled on a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, seeking quashing of charges related to repeated rape, assault, and other offenses. The petitioner, a Circle Inspector, was accused of sexually assaulting and physically harming the complainant, the wife of a police constable, over several years. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the charge of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that the relationship was consensual. However, other charges, including assault and attempt to murder, were upheld for trial.

The complainant alleged that her relationship with the petitioner, a Circle Inspector, began in 2017 when they met at a police station in Shivamogga. The relationship turned physical and continued for over four years. The complainant alleged that the petitioner coerced her into the relationship through fraud, dominance, and threats. She also accused the petitioner of violent behavior during an incident in November 2021, in which she was physically assaulted and left injured.

In her complaint, the complainant accused the petitioner of repeated rape, threats, and physical assault, leading to the filing of an FIR under IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and related proceedings, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant’s allegations were baseless.

Consensual Relationship vs. Alleged Repeated Rape Under Section 376(2)(n)
The primary issue was whether the petitioner’s prolonged physical relationship with the complainant, spanning four years, constituted repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
The court held that the physical relationship was consensual and not the result of fraud or coercion. Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized:

"Consent cannot be obtained by fraud, dominance, or deceit for four long years. Consensual acts cannot be labeled as rape merely because the relationship later turned sour."

The court relied on precedents, including:

Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 3104, which distinguished between consensual acts and rape.
Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 204, which observed that a consensual relationship lasting several years cannot constitute rape.
The court reiterated the principle that a long-standing consensual relationship cannot transform into rape solely because the complainant later feels aggrieved.

The complainant alleged that on November 11, 2021, the petitioner took her to a hotel, where he physically assaulted her and threatened her life. Medical evidence corroborated her injuries, including wounds to her neck, nose, and abdomen. The court noted:

"While consensual acts between the accused and the complainant cannot constitute rape, such acts cannot become a license for assault or violent behavior."

The court upheld the charges under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation), observing that a prima facie case existed for trial.

The complainant argued that the petitioner exploited his position as a Circle Inspector to dominate and coerce her into the relationship. The court rejected this contention, citing a lack of evidence to prove that the complainant’s consent was obtained through dominance or fraud. It observed:

"Consent involves an active will to permit the act. The facts do not support the claim that the complainant’s consent was vitiated by fraud or dominance."

The petitioner contended that the complainant was misusing the legal process, citing multiple complaints filed by her, including one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which resulted in his acquittal. The court declined to interfere with the charges that were prima facie substantiated by evidence.

The High Court partially allowed the petition, quashing the charge of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. However, it upheld the remaining charges, including assault and attempt to murder, for trial. The court clarified:

"The observations made herein are limited to proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and will not influence the trial."

The ruling underscores the distinction between consensual physical relationships and offenses of rape under IPC. It reiterates that consensual acts, even if later regretted, do not constitute rape unless they are a result of fraud, coercion, or lack of consent. At the same time, the judgment emphasizes that no amount of consent justifies violent or abusive behavior, which must face legal scrutiny.

Date of Decision: January 10, 2025