The Karnataka High Court quashed a rape FIR against an advocate, finding the woman’s claim of sexual relations on a false promise of marriage was manipulated. Citing an imprint of manipulation and an attempt to convert discord into public prosecution.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) for rape against an advocate following a complaint from a woman who alleged that he engaged in sexual relations with her under the false pretense of marriage.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that the allegations indicated a consensual relationship between two adults, which cannot be classified as rape solely based on an alleged false promise of marriage.
The judge also highlighted that despite her claims of having ended her previous relationship, evidence suggested that the complainant had given birth to a child and continued to represent herself as the wife of her former husband in official documents.
The Court remarked that the credibility of the complaint was questionable and showed signs of manipulation.
It stated,
“Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, the documents and events noticed hereinabove unmistakably disclose that the complaint is not a genuine criminal grievance, but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution. This, therefore, is a fit case where even proceedings for malicious prosecution may be warranted.”
The case involved a plea from the accused advocate seeking to quash the criminal proceedings brought against him and his family members.
According to the complaint, the woman met the accused in connection with a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Allegedly, their interactions evolved into a friendship and then into a physical relationship after the accused sent her a friend request on Instagram in 2022.
The complainant asserted that in July 2023, the accused visited her home and expressed a desire to marry her, which led to a continuation of their physical relationship based on this promise.
The advocate contended that the woman had previously been married, but that marriage was annulled in 2016. However, records revealed that she had a child from this marriage in 2020, and also another child from a prior relationship.
In 2023, the woman filed a case under Section 13(3) of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, where she referred to herself as her ex-husband’s wife.
Considering all these facts, the Court noted,
“When all these facts, borne out from official records, are considered cumulatively, it becomes difficult to comprehend, far less accept, how the complainant could credibly assert that she consented to sexual relationship on a ‘promise of marriage,’ when she appears to have been in a subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association, and is also mother of 2 children, one about 13 years old and the other about 4 years.”
In quashing the FIR, the Court emphasized that this was a case suitable for allegations of malicious prosecution,
“However, this Court for reasons best left unstated, restrains itself and holds its hands from issuing such direction. Wherefore, this Court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice.”
Advocate Abhishek Kumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate Asma Kouser appeared for the State and Advocate Akshay R. Huddar represented the complainant.
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Karnataka