Rape Case Quashed As Complainant Voluntarily Accompanied Accused To Hotel & Refused Medical Exam: Calcutta High Court

"None of the ingredients required to constitute the offence alleged were prima facie brought on record; proceedings amount to abuse of process of court and are liable to be quashed." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed a criminal proceeding under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), observing that the allegations failed to prima facie constitute the offence of rape.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that when a complainant voluntarily accompanies an accused to a hotel and subsequently refuses medical examination, the continuation of prosecution constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. The Court noted that the "realization" of the alleged offence only after reaching home appeared to be a prima facie afterthought.

The petitioner and the de facto complainant established contact through social media regarding potential business investments. The complainant voluntarily met the petitioner, a resident of Pune, at two different hotels during his visit to Kolkata. Following a two-month delay after the final meeting, the complainant lodged an FIR alleging rape, leading to the submission of a charge sheet and a subsequent order of cognizance by the Magistrate.

The primary question before the court was whether the allegations in the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC, taken at face value, prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 376 IPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the Magistrate had mechanically taken cognizance without considering the inherent contradictions in the investigative materials.

Voluntary Conduct and Absence of Coercion

The Court scrutinized the case diary and the written complaint, noting that the complainant had been in touch with the accused for three months via WhatsApp. On the day of the alleged incident, she voluntarily met him at a hotel in Salt Lake, entered his room, and shared a drink while engaging in casual conversation. The bench observed that the complainant’s own narrative suggested a consensual and voluntary interaction without any assertion of force or loss of consciousness.

Court Notes Complainant's Voluntary Presence In Hotel Room

The Court highlighted that the complainant had not stated at any point that she was rendered unconscious while in the hotel room. Instead, she had described a scenario where she felt "heavy headed," called a cab herself, and returned home at 10:45 p.m. The bench found it significant that the alleged victim had the presence of mind to arrange her own transportation and leave the premises without raising an alarm.

Allegation of Rape Deemed a Prima Facie Afterthought

The complainant’s assertion that she only "realized" she had been raped after reaching home and noticing marks on her body was met with skepticism by the Court. The bench noted that this claim found no support in the broader contents of the written complaint. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) remarked that such a statement, made after a significant time lapse, appeared to be an afterthought that did not align with the initial facts presented.

"The statement of the de facto complainant that she realized that she was raped only after she reached her home does not find any support from the contents in the written complaint and prima facie appears to be an afterthought."

Refusal of Medical Examination and Contradictory Statements

A critical infirmity identified by the Court was the complainant's refusal to undergo a medical examination, as recorded in the case diary. Furthermore, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, she stated that she could not remember the specific incident at the hotel. The Court found these factors, combined with a two-month delay in lodging the FIR, to be fatal to the prosecution’s case at the prima facie stage.

Mechanical Filing of Charge Sheet and Cognizance

The Court expressed concern over the "mechanical" manner in which the investigating agency submitted the charge sheet. It was noted that the police failed to consider a letter from the hotel authorities which improbabilised the allegations. The bench further observed that the Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence without addressing these glaring evidentiary gaps, leading to a miscarriage of justice that required correction under Section 482 CrPC.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents on Consensual Relationships

In its reasoning, the Court relied on several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Jothiragawan v. State (2025) and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025). The bench reiterated the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, stating that where allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence, the High Court must exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the court machinery.

"The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery."

Concluding that the ingredients of Section 376 IPC were entirely missing from the record, the Court allowed the revisional application. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 923 of 2017 and the order of cognizance dated August 23, 2018, were quashed and set aside. The Court ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for immediate compliance.

The High Court underscored that while the law remains stringent regarding sexual offences, it cannot be used to prosecute individuals where the evidence clearly points toward a consensual or voluntary encounter. By quashing the proceedings, the Court emphasized the necessity for Magistrates to apply judicial mind to the materials on record before taking cognizance in cases marked by significant delay and lack of medical corroboration.

Date of Decision: 22 April 2026