Karnataka HC Quashes ‘Manipulated’ Rape Complaint Against Advocate

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) for rape filed against an advocate, observing that the complaint bore a strong imprint of manipulation and was an attempt to convert a private dispute into a criminal case.

 

The complaint had been lodged by a woman alleging that the advocate had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under the false promise of marriage [XXXX v. State of Karnataka].

 

Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the allegations revealed a consensual relationship between two adults, which could not be characterised as rape solely on the basis of an alleged promise of marriage.

 

The Court noted that, despite the complainant asserting that her prior marriage had ended, records showed she had given birth to a child from that marriage and continued to identify herself as the spouse in official documents. This, the Court said, undermined the credibility of her claims.

 

“Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at hand, the documents and events unmistakably disclose that the complaint is not a genuine criminal grievance but bears a strong imprint of manipulation and an attempt to convert private discord into public prosecution,” the Court observed. It further added that the case could even warrant proceedings for malicious prosecution, though the Court refrained from issuing such directions.

 

The FIR was challenged by the accused advocate, who also sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against his family members in connection with the case.

 

According to the complaint, the complainant had met the advocate in connection with a matter under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Their interaction reportedly began after the advocate sent her a friend request on Instagram in 2022, which she accepted, eventually leading to a physical relationship. In July 2023, it was alleged, the advocate expressed willingness to marry her, and the relationship continued on that assurance.

 

The accused argued that the complainant had been previously married in 2016, and although the marriage was annulled, she gave birth to a child from that union in 2020. She also had another child from an earlier marriage. The Court noted that in 2023, the complainant had filed a case under Section 13(3) of the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Act, describing herself as the wife of her former husband in the cause title.

 

The Court observed: “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 a 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 two children, one about 13 years old and the other about four years.”

 

In quashing the FIR, the High Court stressed that criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool of harassment or retaliation, warning against the abuse of the legal process that could result in a miscarriage of justice.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.