Karnataka Hc Refuses Quash Rape Conversion Case Fir Investigation

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a criminal case registered against a man accused of raping a woman, cheating her, and forcing her to convert to Islam.

“There are scores and scores of cases where this court has obliterated the proceedings at the stage of crime itself. That would be owing to the peculiarity of facts projected in each of the cases. In the case at hand, the facts narrated would require investigation,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said in an order dated June 12.

The petitioner, Syed Shoaib, had approached the court seeking to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him on charges of rape, causing a miscarriage without a woman’s consent, cheating, and criminal intimidation, among others.

In her police complaint, the woman alleged that in 2019, she got ‘married’ to Shoaib, with his friends as witnesses. She claimed that the friends later told her that it was a fake wedding ceremony. She also alleged that Shoaib was married and had two children from his first marriage.

Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the offence under Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be remotely made out in the case at hand, as the victim was 30 years old at the time of registration of the crime and the over-10-year relationship between them was consensual.

He further argued that the woman had conceived twice and had taken medication to abort the pregnancy on her own. He also alleged that she decided to marry the petitioner against her parents’ wishes and voluntarily decided to convert to Islam.

Advocate S B Sajjan, appearing for the complainant, opposed the plea, stating that though they had a long relationship, the woman was forced to convert. He argued that the proceedings should not be quashed at this initial stage, and a final police report should be awaited.

The bench, in its order, referred to the complaint lodged on June 2, 2025, and said, “The complaint does not stop at one instance. It records allegations year-wise and overt acts right from the initial meet and development of relationship. The complaint narrates regarding marriage, financial exploitation and threatening of the complainant.”

The order added, “The complaint makes out a clear case of exploitation of the complainant by the petitioner. Abortion twice on account of the relationship and several other factors would require investigation in the least.”

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention that the relationship was consensual, the bench said, “On a deeper delving into the matter, what has unmistakably emerged is that several criminal acts are shrouded with consensual relationships that would require investigation.”