Today, On 28th June, The Bombay High Court ruled that an intimate relationship between two adults does not justify sexual assault. A Division Bench comprising Justices Neela Gokhale and AS Gadkari observed that while the FIR mentioned an intimate relationship between the parties, it explicitly alleged forced, non-consensual sex.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court observed that a relationship between two adults does not excuse sexual assault by one partner, while denying a request to dismiss a rape case.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Neela Gokhale and AS Gadkari, pointed out that although the first information report (FIR) indicated an intimate relationship between the involved parties, it explicitly accused the petitioner of engaging in forced, non-consensual sex.
Read Also: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
The judgment delivered, stated,
“A straightforward reading of the FIR suggests there was an intimate relationship between the parties. However, the complainant has explicitly alleged that the petitioner forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse with her without her consent, despite their relationship. An adult relationship does not justify one partner committing sexual assault on the other,”
The Court addressing a petition from the accused to quash the case against him under sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape of the same woman), 377 (unnatural offences), 504 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The FIR states that the accused, who was the complainant’s neighbour and in a relationship with her, had promised marriage, threatened to take his own life if she refused to marry him, and raped her multiple times.
The complainant further alleged that the accused forcibly engaged in unnatural sex with her and that his family abused and threatened to kill her and her son for discussing marriage with the accused.
The petitioner argued that the relationship consensual. He contended that the complainant married and of a different religion, which, in his view, invalidated the claim of a false promise of marriage.
Moreover, he maintained that a consensual sexual relationship between adults does not amount to rape unless the consent was obtained through deceit or misrepresentation, even if the relationship does not lead to marriage.
The complainant reiterated the allegations in the FIR and cited a medico-legal examination report of sexual violence, which indicated that forcible sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. She therefore urged the dismissal of the petition.
The Court observed that the FIR clearly alleged forced, non-consensual sex and noted that,
“A relationship between two adults does not justify sexual assault by one partner.”
In addressing the defence’s claim that the relationship between the parties consensual, the Court highlighted that the initial consent in a relationship does not imply its perpetual existence.
The Court stated,
“Whenever one partner shows unwillingness to engage in a sexual relationship, the consensual nature of the relationship ends.”
The Court observed that the FIR did not demonstrate ongoing consent from the complainant. Despite her willingness to marry the petitioner, she was not interested in maintaining a sexual relationship with him.
The Court opined that the allegations in the FIR prima facie suggested the commission of the alleged offense, and the petitioner’s defence could not be examined at this stage. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Priyanka Jaiswal v. The State of Jharkhand and Others, the Court emphasized that a High Court could not conduct a mini-trial while exercising writ jurisdiction.
Furthermore, the Court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, asserting that the prosecutrix’s statement should be trusted at this preliminary stage.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the FIR sufficiently indicated the alleged offenses and dismissed the writ petition.
Advocates Abhang Suryawanshi and Narayan Rokade represented the petitioner.
Advocate Mahindra Deshmukh represented the complainant, and Additional Public Prosecutor Anamika Malhotra represented the State.
Read Judgement: [Amol Bhagwan Nehul v State of Maharashtra and Anr.]