In a significant judgment aimed at curbing the misuse of criminal laws, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) for rape registered against a Bengaluru-based advocate. The Court observed that the complaint was a "strong imprint of manipulation" and a clear attempt to convert a private dispute into a public prosecution.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while presiding over the matter, held that the allegations essentially pointed toward a consensual relationship between two adults. The Court emphasized that a relationship cannot be characterized as rape merely because an alleged promise of marriage was not fulfilled, especially when the complainant’s own conduct and history raised serious questions about her credibility.

The case originated from a complaint filed by a woman who had initially sought legal assistance from the accused advocate in connection with a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complainant, their interaction moved from professional to personal after the advocate sent her a friend request on Instagram in 2022.

She alleged that their friendship developed into a physical relationship. Furthermore, she claimed that in July 2023, the advocate visited her home and expressed his intention to marry her, after which their physical intimacy continued based on that assurance. However, when the marriage did not materialize, she approached the police, accusing him of rape on the false pretext of marriage.

The accused advocate and his family members subsequently moved the High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that the case was maliciously filed to harass them.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the High Court found several glaring inconsistencies in the complainant’s story. The petitioner pointed out that the woman had been married before. While she claimed that her previous marriage was annulled in 2016, official records told a different story.

The Court noted that despite the alleged annulment, the complainant had given birth to a child in 2020—four years after the purported end of that marriage. Furthermore, she had another child from an even earlier marriage, who is now roughly 13 years old.

The most damaging piece of evidence against the complainant's narrative was a legal filing from 2023. The woman had initiated proceedings under the Karnataka Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, where she explicitly described herself as the wife of her former husband in the legal documents.

The Court found it impossible to reconcile her claim of being "tricked" into a sexual relationship by a promise of marriage while she was simultaneously portraying herself as being in a subsisting marital or domestic relationship with another man in official records.

Justice Nagaprasanna reiterated the established legal principle that there is a distinction between a "false promise to marry" and a "breach of promise."

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 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."

The judge further noted that the complainant was a mother of two children and an adult capable of understanding the consequences of her actions. Therefore, the relationship appeared entirely consensual, and the subsequent criminal complaint was viewed as an afterthought.

The High Court took a very stern view of the misuse of the legal machinery. It described the case as one where the criminal process was being employed as an "engine of harassment" and a "weapon of retaliation."

The judgment stated that the case was so meritless that it could have justified the initiation of proceedings for malicious prosecution against the complainant.

"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 held.

However, the Court stated it would "hold its hands" and refrain from ordering a formal inquiry into malicious prosecution for reasons "best left unstated," focusing instead on the immediate necessity of quashing the FIR to prevent further injustice to the advocate.

By quashing the FIR, the Karnataka High Court has sent a clear message regarding the scrutiny required in cases involving allegations of rape on the pretext of marriage. The ruling underscores that while the law exists to protect victims, the courts must remain vigilant against attempts to use the criminal justice system to settle personal scores or manipulate private discords.

Case Title: XXXX v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Representing Petitioner: Advocate Abhishek Kumar

Representing State: Advocate Asma Kouser

Representing Complainant: Advocate Akshay R. Huddar