Consensual Relationship with the accused did not work out prevents the filing of a rape case: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s single-judge bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati has reaffirmed that the absence of a consensual connection cannot be a justification for filing a FIR for the crime of rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).

The petitioner requested a standard bail after being charged with crimes punishable by Sections 376 (2)(N), 417, 420, 323, 384, and 506 read with 109, IPC. The petitioner and the complainant were allegedly dating, according to the complainant.

With his parents’ permission, the latter brought her to his house and had sex with her after pledging to marry the complainant.

She said that after the petitioner’s mother forced her to eat papaya and the petitioner gave her some pills, the woman’s menstrual cycle was restarted. She said that the petitioner and his parents had shunned her ever since. She claimed that the petitioner’s pals had made phone threats against her.

The petitioner’s attorney argued that the accusations were unspecific and, on their face, did not appear to be an offence. It was said that the complainant forced this fake lawsuit when the petitioner’s parents refused to approve of their marriage.

If granted bail, the petitioner might not participate with the inquiry, according to the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, who maintained that the charges were severe in nature.

The petitioner and complainant were in a consensual relationship, according to the court, which determined that it was prima facie obvious that the complainant had brought the current case when she thought her relationship with the petitioner would not last.

The Court agreed that, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling on which the petitioner’s attorney had relied, if the complainant and the other person entered into a relationship voluntarily, the failure of that relationship to last cannot serve as a basis for filing a FIR for the violation of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

The court stated that the case’s circumstances were directly germane to the ruling. As a result, the Court granted the petitioner regular bail.

Read more legal news here.