‘Alleged offence was repeated thrice in the same manner, when woman willingly accompanied accused to hotel room’: SC quashes rape case against 22-year-old man

Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against the Madras High Court’s decision rejecting the accused person’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for allegations of having forceful sexual intercourse with the complainant on the pretext of marriage, the Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran*, JJ. held that the matter at hand was precisely a case where the High Court should have interfered in the exercise of its inherent and extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and directed that the proceedings initiated at the instance of the complainant before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) be quashed. The Court held that the sexual relationship admitted by both parties was not without the consent of the complainant.

Background

Both the accused and the complainant were about 22 years of age and were closely related to each other. It was alleged that the accused and the complainant had sexual intercourse thrice. After meeting at a family function, the accused expressed his desire to marry the complainant. The complainant stated that they were in a relationship and the accused visited the complainant frequently. It was alleged that at the accused’s request, the complainant accompanied him to a movie, after which she felt dizzy, and they took a room in a hotel. There was an ‘abrupt and unexpected’ sexual intercourse, under coercion against her wishes. The accused had promised to marry her. In the complaint, it was mentioned that on the pretext of discussing marriage, the accused called the complainant and she willingly accompanied him to the very same hotel, where she was coerced into a sexual intercourse.

Analysis and Decision

Perusing the complainant’s statement, the Court said that there was no inducement by the accused, with a promise of marriage, before the alleged crime of sexual intercourse. The Court also pointed out that the marriage proposal was not accepted by the complainant, and that there was no such statement that she agreed to the sexual intercourse on a marriage proposal. The Court also underscored that, if at all, there was a promise, it was after the intercourse.

Regarding the second instance of sexual intercourse, the Court said that there was no promise of marriage or any inducement thereby, and the allegation was that the accused threatened her that he would not marry if she did not have sexual intercourse with him and then forcibly had such intercourse. The Court stated that these were mutually destructive contentions, since, if there was consent, forceful intercourse could not be alleged, and it could only be contended that consent was obtained on misrepresentation or coercion.

Additionally, the Court pointed out that if the complainant was mentally upset after both these instances, the same did not prevent her from going to the very same hotel for the third time. The Court stated that there was no promise of marriage to coerce consent from the complainant for sexual intercourse.

The allegation of forceful intercourse under threat and coercion was not believable, given the relationship admitted between the parties and the willing and repeated excursions to hotel rooms. The allegation was also of threat and coercion against the complainant, to have sexual intercourse with the accused, which, even as per the complainant’s statement, was repeated thrice in the same manner, when she willingly accompanied the accused to a hotel room.

Hence, considering the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal and held that the criminal proceedings initiated against the present accused were nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE