The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere opposition of family members to a proposed matrimonial alliance cannot, by itself, disclose the ingredients of offences such as rape or abetment against them.

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed criminal proceedings against the mother and sister of the principal accused in a rape case, while refusing to quash the proceedings against the man accused of engaging in a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.

“Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of a familial relationship with the principal accused or on the basis of opposition to a matrimonial alliance,” Justice Govindaraj said.

The Court said, “Mere opposition to a proposed marriage, even if the same is viewed from the standpoint of the complainant, cannot by itself constitute the offences alleged against petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The statement attributed to petitioner No.2 that, in the event of the marriage, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 would have to live separately and eke out their livelihood independently may explain the opposition of the family to the proposed marriage, but does not, without anything more, disclose the ingredients of the substantive offences alleged in the charge sheet.”

The Court held, “In the absence of any specific overt act or material connecting them with the alleged sexual relationship or the alleged promise to marry, continuation of the proceedings against them would serve no legitimate prosecutorial purpose.”

Drawing a distinction between the allegations against the principal accused (petitioner no. 1) and his relatives, the High Court observed that whether his promise to marry was genuine or false from its inception must be determined during the trial

“The distinction between petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is therefore clear. As against petitioner No.1, there are specific allegations concerning the alleged representation of marriage, the subsequent physical relationship, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances in which the relationship came to an end. These allegations require factual adjudication and cannot be conclusively rejected at the threshold. As against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, however, the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, essentially establish only opposition to the marriage. The necessary factual foundation for the offences alleged against them is absent,” the Court said.

Delay in lodging complaint cannot be sole ground to quash proceedings

The Court observed that delay in lodging the complaint alone cannot be the ground to quash the case against the principal accused.

“The delay may constitute a circumstance relevant to the appreciation of the prosecution case, and the explanation offered for such delay may be tested during trial. However, where the charge sheet has been filed after investigation and the material collected by the investigating agency discloses circumstances requiring adjudication, the mere passage of time between the alleged acts and the lodging of the complaint does not, by itself, extinguish the prosecution case. The effect of such delay is a matter which can appropriately be considered upon appreciation of the evidence at trial,” the Court said.

The High Court further noted that it cannot conduct a “mini-trial” while exercising jurisdiction at the stage of challenge to the charge sheet, and that determination of the issues such as nature of the relationship and consent require evidentiary examination.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition to quash criminal proceedings filed by the main accused while allowing the same for his mother and sister.

Background

The case arose from a complaint lodged in 2023 by the second respondent, following which a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (Rape), 417 (Punishment for Cheating), 109 (Punishment for Abetment), and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The complainant and first petitioner were in a relationship since 2021. The complainant alleged that the first petitioner assured her and her parents that he would marry the complainant. Based on this continuous representation, physical intimacy took place. However, when she insisted on marriage, he began avoiding her and alleged that she was involved with other individuals. It was further alleged that his mother and sister opposed the marriage and stated that if the couple married, they would have to live separately and earn independently without family support.