Karnataka Hc Rape Case Consent Trial Quashing Plea

The Karnataka High Court Tuesday refused to quash an alleged rape case against a 28-year-old man who claimed that the sexual relationship with the complainant was consensual, holding that whether consent was given or forcibly obtained was a disputed question of fact that could only be determined at trial.

Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the man’s plea, noting that the case “is not of a prolonged relationship between the two or repeated consensual act”.

“It was only one instance between April 19, 2024 and April 21, 2024. Therefore, whether consent was really given or it has been forcibly taken is a matter of evidence. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial as to whether it would amount to an offence of rape or otherwise,” Justice Nagaprasanna added.

“If there had been repeated instances of sexual intercourse between the two, it would have been altogether different circumstances. This court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS/Section 482 of the CrPC and adjudicate on a disputed question of facts requiring evidence,” it said.

The man, the complainant’s senior and also her friend, sought to quash the case registered against him.

According to the complaint, the woman, a medical coder in Bengaluru, had known the man before the alleged incident.

The complainant claimed the man travelled from Chennai to Bengaluru on April 19, 2024, to meet the woman and booked a hotel room, where the two stayed until April 21. The woman subsequently alleged that they had sexual relations during this period and that the intercourse was not consensual.

She lodged a complaint on May 1, 2024, following which the police registered a case under a section of the Indian Penal Code that prescribes punishment for rape, and subsequently filed a chargesheet.

Seeking quashing of the proceedings, the man argued that the sexual relationship was consensual and that there had been no forcible intercourse.

His lawyer submitted that the woman wanted to marry him, but that his client had made it clear that he did not intend to marry her and that their relationship was only a “friendship with benefits”.

The complainant disputed this account, submitting that the man had engaged in a sexual relationship with her on the promise of marriage and subsequently walked away. She alleged that the sexual intercourse had therefore taken place without her consent.