'Consensual Sex Outside Marriage By Woman Is Promiscuity, Not Misconception Of Fact': P&H High Court Quashes Rape FIR Against Man
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that where an adult woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations over a prolonged period, such conduct cannot be construed as arising from a misconception of fact so as to attract the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The Court observed that in such circumstances, the relationship reflects consensual conduct.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 376(2) IPC on the complaint of the husband of the prosecutrix, alleging that the petitioner, who was a skating coach known to the family, had developed relations with the prosecutrix and later forcibly established physical relations with her and blackmailed her. The petitioner contended that the relationship between them was consensual. It was pointed out that both families were on visiting terms, that the prosecutrix had continued the relationship over a considerable period, and that no material was found during the investigation to substantiate allegations of blackmail.
The Court noted that it would be conscious in interfering with the criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation or trial; however, there are certain cases where the Court, in order to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, can quash the criminal proceedings.
The Court examined the allegations in the FIR and noted that the prosecutrix and the petitioner had developed friendly relations, which later turned into a physical relationship. It further noted that the prosecutrix had undergone an abortion without informing her husband and disclosed the relationship only after being confronted and threatened with divorce. The Court also took note of the fact that the alleged incidents of sexual relations had occurred over a long duration.
“The only reasonable inference which can be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case is that respondent No. 3 and the petitioner had developed a friendship, and later on, they also developed a physical relationship,” the Court observed.
The Court found that there was no material to indicate that the prosecutrix was subjected to blackmail in the relationship. It noted that she was a mature and educated individual who continued the relationship over time and that no evidence of blackmail was found during the investigation. It observed:
“In fact, if a fully grown-up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse and continues to indulge in such activity, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact.”
The Court observed that in such circumstances, the ingredients of Section 375 IPC were not made out. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Case Title: Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors. [CRM-M-1885 of 2021 (O&M)]