There have been numerous instances where a failed relationship takes an unexpected turn, transforming consensual intimacy into criminal conduct. One such recent case was decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The facts of the case are discussed below :
The complainant and the applicant initiated a romantic relationship in 2011 when the complainant was over 18 years old. The applicant proposed a love relationship, which the complainant initially hesitated but later accepted. They engaged in a physical relationship after the applicant expressed intentions of marriage. However, the applicant later avoided discussing marriage and the complainant learned about his relationship with another woman. Despite this, the complainant did not file a complaint until December 2013. The complainant, who was 30 years old when filing the FIR, did not allege coercion in the physical relationship. She was aware of the applicant's relationship with another woman but was convinced by him that the allegations were false.
Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble Court observed that upon careful examination of the accusation and the materials on record, it was evident that the physical relationship between the applicant and the complainant was consensual. The court found no evidence to support the claim that the complainant's consent was a result of a false promise of marriage from the beginning. Therefore, continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Consequently, the court granted the applicant's request to quash the charges u/s 375 of IPC against him and discharge him from all accusations.
In this case, various judgments were cited as guiding principles for the legal counsels, aiding them in framing arguments and presenting relevant legal precedents to the court for consideration, including Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT Of Delhi), Uday v. State of Karnataka, Sheikh Arif v. The State of Maharashtra, Deelip Singh alias Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, and Anurag Soni.