Relationship with mutual consent ending in disappointment not an offence: Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a relationship that begins with mutual consent but later ends in disappointment cannot automatically be treated as a criminal offence. Justice M Nagaprasanna made this observation while quashing a rape FIR against a man accused by a woman he had met through a dating app.

“A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law,” the court said in its order on October 25. It further remarked that allowing such a case to proceed to trial would only result in “a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice.”

The case involved a man and a woman who initially connected on a dating platform, later communicated over social media, and eventually decided to meet in person at a restaurant. According to the record, they later engaged in intimate relations at a hotel. The woman subsequently filed a complaint alleging that the encounter amounted to rape.

An FIR had been lodged under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), prompting the accused to approach the high court seeking to have the case dismissed. The court noted that the investigating officer appeared to have overlooked crucial social media exchanges between the two, which suggested that the relationship was consensual.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court highlighted the importance of distinguishing between consensual sex and rape. It referred to the apex court’s clarification that, “If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.”

The court also highlighted another portion of the same ruling, observing: “There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused and not solely on account of the misconception created by accused, or where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do. Such cases must be treated differently.”

After examining the facts and relevant legal precedents, the Karnataka High Court concluded that the matter did not warrant criminal prosecution. It therefore allowed the man’s petition and quashed the FIR, stating that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of legal process.