The Karnataka High Court has quashed rape charges against a man in a live-in relationship by his partner of 22 years.

A single bench of judges Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by Satish and quashed the case registered against him under sections 323,376,417,420,504,506 of the Indian Penal Code.

A detailed order is not yet available.

While granting interim relief and staying all further proceedings, as the previous petitioner, the court observed, “This case forms a classic illustration of what can become an abuse of right process. The petitioner and the complainant are said to have been in a relationship for 22 years. After 22 years of relationship, when the relationship turned sour, it is said to have become a crime of rape. On the other hand, it is an abuse of right to allow any further proceedings in the case at hand.”

According to the complainant, she had earlier married one Mallaiah and had two children from their marriage. The petitioner’s husband was suffering from a terminal illness, hence she came to Bengaluru in the year 2004 and joined a hotel for work.

There, she met the accused who was said to have been promised to marry her and with the assurance that he would provide a good life, she started living in his house. It was alleged that the accused would introduce her to everyone as his wife and physically abuse the complainant.

It was also claimed that he received 8 lei from her and bought a car and bicycles. However, without marrying her, he went to his native place and arranged to marry another girl.

When she asked the accused to marry her, he scolded her with foul language and made a fuss. Following this, she filed a complaint. The investigating police have filed their case in this case.

Seeking quashing of the prosecution, the petitioner contended that from the pleadings of the complaint and the FIR, it is evident that the complainant and the petitioner had a relationship of more than 18 years and engaged in consensual sex and as such the consensual act cannot become any crime. section 376 of the IPC nor would breach of promise become an offense of cheating under section 420 of the IPC.

Furthermore, it is apparent that the promise made by the petitioner has no immediate relevance or direct connection to the decision of the complainant to engage in the sexual act alleged in the complaint.

Further, the alleged incident took place in the years 2004 to 2023 the complaint is filed in the month of June 2023 i.e. after almost 18 years without assigning any reason for the inordinate and undue delay in filing the complaint and this is evident from the fact that the complaint it is maliciously instituted with an oblique motive and for extraneous motives best known

It was therefore prayed that the charge be quashed.

Appearance: H.Shanthi Bhushan Advocate for Petitioner.

Reference no: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 472

Case Title: Satish AND State of Karnataka

File No: CRL.P 6419/2024

Click here to read/download the order