Karnataka High Court Dismisses Rape Charge Against Cohabiting Partner After 22 Years of Relationship

The Karnataka High Court has quashed rape charges against a man living in the same house by his partner of 22 years.

single judge bench Justice M Nagaprasanna He accepted the petition filed by Satish and imposed Section 323,376,417,420,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code. He quashed the case filed against him due to the articles.

A detailed order has not yet been published.

The court observed, as the plaintiff had already stated, in granting interim relief and staying all further proceedings: “This case is a classic example of what can become an abuse of law. The petitioner and the complainant are said to have been in a relationship for 22 years. It is said that when relations deteriorated after 22 years of togetherness, this turned into the crime of rape. “It appears that allowing any trial to take place in the present case constitutes an abuse of the legal process.”

According to the complainant, she was previously married to a man named Mallaiah and had two children from this marriage. The complainant’s husband was suffering from a terminal illness, so he came to Bengaluru in 2004 and joined a hotel for work.

There she met the defendant, who allegedly promised to marry her, and started living in his house with the assurance that he would provide her with a good life. It was claimed that the defendant would introduce himself to everyone as his wife and physically use the complainant.

He also allegedly took Rs 8 lakh from him and bought a car and a bike. However, without marrying her, he went to her hometown and arranged to marry another girl.

When he proposed to the defendant, he scolded her in obscene language and made a fuss. He then filed a complaint. The police who conducted the investigation filed a criminal complaint regarding the incident.

Seeking to defeat the prosecution, the petitioner has argued that in the statements made in the complaint and the FIR, it is clear that the complainant and the petitioner were in a relationship for more than 18 years and had consensual sexual intercourse and therefore the consensual act cannot constitute an offence. Breach of promise or section 376 of the IPC shall not become an offense of cheating under section 420 of the IPC.

It is also clear that the promise made by the petitioner had no direct bearing or connection with the petitioner’s decision to engage in the sexual act alleged in the complaint.

Additionally, the alleged incident occurred between 2004 and 2023. The complaint was filed in June 2023, that is, almost 18 years later, without giving any justification for the excessive and unjustified delay in filing the complaint, and this is obvious. The fact that the complaint was initiated in bad faith with an indirect motive and for best known extraneous reasons

Accordingly, a prayer was made for the prosecution to be quashed.

Appearance: H.Shanthi Bhushan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Quote Number: 2024 LiveLaw (Snow) 472

Case Title: Satish AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 6419/2024

Click Here to Read/Download the Order