Karnataka HC refuses to quash rape charges despite accused claiming 'consensual sex'

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings in an alleged rape case, despite the petitioner’s claim that the incident was a consensual act that occurred during a social drinking session.

Justice M Nagaprasanna referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kaptan Singh case, asserting that proceedings cannot be halted or dismissed when serious factual disputes remain at the heart of the case.

On September 5, 2021, the complainant attended a birthday party. Five days after the incident, a complaint was lodged at the Jeevan Bima Nagar police station in Bengaluru.

Although the initial FIR was filed under sections 354A and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the police later filed a charge sheet under Section 376 of the IPC (rape), while dropping the other charges.

The petitioner argued that the act was consensual and pointed out that the complainant had continued to contact him after the incident, even wishing him for his birthday. He contended that a consensual act could not be considered rape and, at most, might fall under sections 354 or 354A of the IPC. In contrast, the complainant argued that social drinking could not justify the petitioner’s forcible sexual conduct.

The court noted witness testimonies confirming that the complainant and the petitioner had been drenched in rain and entered a room while the party continued outside. Witnesses further stated that the complainant had later emerged from the room in tears, gathered her belongings, and left without speaking to anyone.

“It is an admitted fact that the complainant, the following day, called the petitioner and spoke cordially. The complainant defends this by stating that she called because her bag and chain were still at the petitioner’s house and needed to be returned via Dunzo.

In light of these facts, as well as the FSL report that does not show the presence of spermatozoa in the complainant’s private parts, it cannot be conclusively stated that there was no act of rape or attempted rape. These are issues that are seriously disputed and require evidence to resolve,” Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.

The judge further stated, “The petitioner’s actions on the night of September 5, 2021, prima facie, amount to sexual assault. Whether they constitute rape or another offence is a matter to be determined in trial.”