The Karnataka High Court ruled that consensual relationships do not excuse acts of violence or intimidation, in a case against a police inspector accused of harassment by a social worker. Despite denying the allegations, the inspector faced serious charges as the court recognized the complainant’s claims of assault and intimidation, allowing the trial to proceed.
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has emphasized that consensual relationships do not provide a license for physical assault or intimidation. This decision was made in a case involving a serving Circle Inspector of Police and a social worker who accused him of harassment, assault, and intimidation.
The complainant, a social worker and wife of a police constable, first met the inspector in 2017 during a visit to the Bhadravathi Rural Police Station. Over time, a consensual relationship developed. However, by May 2021, the relationship soured, and the complainant lodged a formal complaint at the Women’s Police Station, accusing the inspector of physical and sexual harassment.
The situation worsened when the inspector allegedly threatened to harm her children if she did not withdraw the complaint. Following this, additional charges were filed under IPC Sections 504 and 506, which pertain to insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation, respectively.
In November 2021, the complainant alleged that the inspector abducted her, took her to a hotel, and assaulted her before leaving her at the Sagar Bus Stop early the next morning. The complainant sought medical attention for her injuries and filed further complaints. The charges included serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as rape, kidnapping, wrongful confinement, attempt to murder, and assault.
The inspector denied the allegations, arguing that the relationship had been consensual from the start. He also highlighted his acquittal in a related cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act to counter the claims.
Also Read: Plea in Delhi HC Seeks ECI Action Against AAP’s Mahila Samman Scheme
Justice M Nagaprasanna, while acknowledging the consensual nature of the relationship, ruled that it does not absolve the accused of responsibility for acts of violence or intimidation. The court dismissed the charge of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) but upheld other charges, including assault, intimidation, and attempt to murder.
The judge remarked on the “gross misogynist brutality” inflicted on the complainant, allowing the trial to proceed on these serious counts.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
