A sexual relationship may be consensual at the beginning but does not necessarily have to remain so, the Supreme Court recently observed while refusing to quash a rape case [Rajkumar v State of Karnataka and anr].A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar explained that whenever a partner in a relationship becomes unwilling to continue a relationship, the character of the relationship will change."A relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to continue with such relationship, the character of such relationship at it was when started will not continue to prevail," the Court explained.The Court was dealing with a case where a woman (complainant/ rape survivor) had alleged that the accused had suppressed his earlier marriage and induced her into marrying him and engaging in a sexual relationship.The Karnataka High Court had earlier refused to quash the rape case on finding that further investigation was needed in the matter.The accused denied the allegations, terming them contradictory, politically motivated and meant to blackmail him. He asserted that his relationship with the complainant had been consensual.He also filed an extortion case against the complainant.In March 2023, the High Court opined that a thorough investigation was required into the allegations made by both persons against each other after their relationship soured. Therefore, it refused to quash the woman's rape complaint as well as the man's extortion complaint.The top court upheld the High Court's decision while dismissing the appeal filed by the accused man with respect to the rape complaint.The Supreme Court was unconvinced that the allegations were such that the offence of rape was improbable. Rather, the Court opined that the allegations indicated that the complainant's (rape survivor) continued consent was not there for the relationship."We do not think the relationship had remained consensual to justify quashing of the criminal complaint at the threshold. We also do not think that the complaint, in pursuance of which the FIR has been registered, lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged," the order stated.The appeal was, thus, dismissed.Given the nature of the allegations, the High Court was also directed to refer to the complainant as ‘Miss X’ and mask her identity in all pending proceedings. This direction was issued after the Court observed that her identity had been disclosed in the High Court's judgment.Senior Advocate Vinay Navare with advocates Chinmay Deshpande, Manjunath K, and Anirudh Sanganeria represented the accused.
Additional Advocate General Muhammad Ali Khan with advocate VN Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Omar Hoda, Uday Bhatia, Eesha Bakshi, and Kamran Khan represented the State of Karnataka.
Advocates Namit Saxena and Shaurya Rai appeared for the complainant.
TAGS: Supreme Court consensual relationship rape case refusal quash complainant accused previous marriage sexual relationship
