Bombay HC: Intimacy doesn’t justify sexual assault on partner | Mumbai News – Times of India
MUMBAI: A relationship between two individuals does not justify sexual assault by one on his partner, said Bombay high court on Friday, while declining to quash an FIR against a man booked for rape and unnatural offences.
Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale dismissed the man’s plea to quash the July 31, 2023, FIR registered by Karad police station, Satara. The woman was divorced with a son (4).Her parents had passed away during Covid-19 pandemic. In May 2022, the man came to live next door. They chatted and eventually their relationship became intimate. He declared his love for her and promised to marry her. He demanded sex which she consistently refused. The woman cited instances where he forcibly had sex without her consent. He “also forced her to indulge in unnatural sex with him.”
The woman then demanded he marry her and reveal their relationship to his family. He promised he would marry her after he gets a job. Thereafter, he avoided her. His family told her there was no question of marriage as they belong to different religions. The man joined them in abusing her and threatened to kill her and her son. She went to the police.
Her advocate showed the medical report mentioned that “forcible sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out”. The man’s advocate said it was a consensual relationship. “It is trite that a relationship may be consensual at the beginning, but the same state may not remain so for all times to come. Whenever one of the partners shows their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist,” Justice Gokhale wrote for the bench.
The judges said the woman’s allegations “do not demonstrate continuous consent” on her part but that even though she was desirous of marrying the man, “she definitely was not inclined to indulge in a sexual relationship with him”.
They said this case is not one of those where there was bona fide intent on a man’s part to marry and on assurance of which, the parties enjoyed intimacy but it did not fructify in marriage. “It is in such cases that the apex (Supreme) court has distinguished between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused,” they explained.
The judges said, prima facie, allegations in the FIR constitute commission of alleged offence. “We do not think… the relationship between the complainant and petitioner, in respect of indulging in sexual activities, was consensual to justify quashing the criminal complaint at the threshold,” they concluded.
Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale dismissed the man’s plea to quash the July 31, 2023, FIR registered by Karad police station, Satara. The woman was divorced with a son (4).Her parents had passed away during Covid-19 pandemic. In May 2022, the man came to live next door. They chatted and eventually their relationship became intimate. He declared his love for her and promised to marry her. He demanded sex which she consistently refused. The woman cited instances where he forcibly had sex without her consent. He “also forced her to indulge in unnatural sex with him.”
The woman then demanded he marry her and reveal their relationship to his family. He promised he would marry her after he gets a job. Thereafter, he avoided her. His family told her there was no question of marriage as they belong to different religions. The man joined them in abusing her and threatened to kill her and her son. She went to the police.
Her advocate showed the medical report mentioned that “forcible sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out”. The man’s advocate said it was a consensual relationship. “It is trite that a relationship may be consensual at the beginning, but the same state may not remain so for all times to come. Whenever one of the partners shows their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist,” Justice Gokhale wrote for the bench.
The judges said the woman’s allegations “do not demonstrate continuous consent” on her part but that even though she was desirous of marrying the man, “she definitely was not inclined to indulge in a sexual relationship with him”.
They said this case is not one of those where there was bona fide intent on a man’s part to marry and on assurance of which, the parties enjoyed intimacy but it did not fructify in marriage. “It is in such cases that the apex (Supreme) court has distinguished between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused,” they explained.
The judges said, prima facie, allegations in the FIR constitute commission of alleged offence. “We do not think… the relationship between the complainant and petitioner, in respect of indulging in sexual activities, was consensual to justify quashing the criminal complaint at the threshold,” they concluded.
