Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Rape On Pretext Of Marriage, Says Complaint Appears To Be Manipulated

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a FIR lodged against an advocate for raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, noting that the complaint appeared to be a manipulation, questioning how the woman could make allegations when she appeared to be in a "subsisting marital relationship or the very least in a continuing domestic association".

Justice M Nagaprasanna perused the complaint and noted that the petitioner and complainant came to know each other in connection with a case concerning Negotiable Instruments Act as she needed legal assistance. It was alleged that in 2022 the advocate sent her a request on Instagram and also made phone calls requesting her to accept his request; thereafter they became friends.

The court noted that the narration in the complaint was with regard to certain sexual escapades of the petitioner with the complainant and that later the petitioner's attitude suddenly changed and he began to ignore her calls.

It noted that as per the complaint, complainant came to know that the petitioner's parents are searching for a girl for marriage; thereafter the complaint was filed claiming that the petitioner had on several occasions committed rape for two years on the pretext of marriage.

The court said:

"A perusal at the complaint would indicate that even if it is taken on its face value, they were consensual acts for two years whether on the pretext of marriage or otherwise. Jurisprudence is replete with the judgments rendered by the Apex Court from time to time, which has intertwined the concept of rape and consensual sex and how consensual sex on the promise of marriage cannot amount to rape...In the case at hand, the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, at its inception, was plainly that of a client and a counsel...The complainant on her own showing and on admitted records, appears to have been married/associated in other relationships, and to have children. In such circumstances, the allegation of sexual intercourse, induced solely on promise of marriage is inherently implausible and legally unsustainable, consequently, neither Section 96 BNS nor Section 64 BNS (Section 376 of the earlier regime, the IPC) can be attracted"

It further said:

"The documents and events noticed hereinabove unmistakably disclose, that the complaint is not a genuine criminal grievance, but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and of an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution. This, therefore, is a fit case where even proceedings for malicious prosecution may be warranted. However, this Court for reasons best left unstated, restrains itself and holds its hands from issuing such direction. Wherefore, this Court cannot permit the criminal process to be employed as an engine of harassment or a weapon of retaliation and become an abuse of the process of the law, eventually resulting in miscarriage of justice"

The court noted that complainant was married in 2014 to a man, wherein the marriage was annulled in 2016. However in 2020, it appeared that a child was born to the complainant, wherein the birth certificate showed her former husband's name as the father of the child.

The court referred to the birth certificate and said that the complainant appears to have continued her association with her former husband even after dissolution of marriage.

Thereafter, the court referred to another birth certificate produced by the petitioner of 2008; however here the name of the father was not the same as her former husband.

The court concluded that the complainant had a child in 2008 with one man and thereafter a second child in 2020 to her former husband long after anulment of marriage.

"These circumstances do not float in isolation. They connect with yet another material episode. A crime comes to be registered on 28-11-2022 and on the basis of the said complainant a crime in Crime No.602 of 2022 for offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC is alleged. The gravamen of the complaint is that the child born from their earlier relationship, went missing on 25-11-2022. The child was about 13 years at that point in time. In the complaint, the complainant narrates that she is married and settled with another person," the court noted.

It further noted that the complainant filed a plea in 2023 invoking Section 13(3) Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Act and in the cause title therein, the complainant described herself to be the wife of her former husband.

It thereafter said:

"When all these facts, borne out from official records, are considered cumulatively, it becomes difficult to comprehend, far less accept, how the complainant could credibly assert that she consented to sexual relationship on a “promise of marriage”, when she appears to have been in a subsisting marital relationship or at the very least, in a continuing domestic association, and is also mother of 2 children, one about 13 years old and the other about 4 years. What is more disturbing is the disquieting fashion in which the complainant has sought to implicate other members of the family of the petitioner. They are arraigned on a tenuous allegation that they did not cooperate or support the petitioner's marriage with the complainant, thereby attempting to create a narrative of cheating. Criminal law cannot be permitted to be expanded by such facile insinuation"

The petitioner argued that there is no physical relationship between him and the complainant at all nor was there any promise of marriage. He said that it was a concocted story which the complainant has used. He argued that the complainant is already married not once but twice, and a person who is already married cannot project physical relationship on the promise of marriage. He claimed that the complainant is in the habit of indulging in such acts of trapping men and registering crimes against them.

The complainant contended that the petitioner had a relationship with her as an Advocate for the last 3 years prior to registration of crime. The physical relationship had happened between the two on the pretext of promise of marriage. The complainant, though is married, came in contact with the petitioner on divorce.

The court allowed the plea.

Case title: XXXX v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA and Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1225 OF 2025 C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2826 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order