A prolonged consensual relationship absent coercion may warrant quashing rape proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC of the charge-sheet dated 15 November 2022, the summoning order dated 6 February 2023, and the criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 56 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 376 and 452 IPC.

The complainant, a married woman aged approximately 31 years, alleged that she had been in a relationship with the applicant for six to seven years and that he had raped her on several occasions.

The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and that the complaint was lodged only after the complainant’s husband allegedly saw her with the applicant on the rooftop.

The complainant disputed this, alleging that the applicant had forcibly entered her house and subjected her to sexual assault, but explained the delay on account of social and familial pressure.

The prosecution relied upon the statements of the complainant and her husband under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and asserted that a prima facie case existed.

The Court also considered a written Mafinama, which recorded that the applicant had entered the complainant’s house in an intoxicated condition but did not expressly refer to forcible sexual relations.

Whether, on the basis of the FIR and the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the relationship between the applicant and the complainant was consensual in nature?

Whether the allegations and material on record disclosed an offence under Section 376 IPC warranting continuation of the criminal proceedings?

Whether the charge-sheet, summoning order, and consequential criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law?

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process or where intervention is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

It considered Sections 376 and 452 IPC, relating respectively to rape and house-trespass after preparation for assault or wrongful restraint.

The Court relied principally on Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528, where the Supreme Court held that a long-standing voluntary relationship, absent material indicating coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation, may constitute a consensual relationship and that continuation of prosecution for rape in such circumstances may amount to abuse of process.

It also relied on Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 517, in which proceedings arising from an FIR alleging rape were quashed after the Court found the relationship to have been consensual and subsequently acrimonious.

The Court treated the complainant’s admitted six-to-seven-year relationship with the applicant, the absence of any complaint during that period, and her continued communication and meetings with him as circumstances indicating consent.

It further found that the Mafinama did not record that the applicant had forcibly established physical relations with the complainant; it merely referred to his entering the house while intoxicated.

The Court also noted the absence of medical evidence supporting the allegation of repeated forcible sexual assault.

Applying the reasoning in Samadhan and Sonu alias Subhash Kumar, the Court concluded that the complaint appeared to follow the discovery of the relationship by the complainant’s husband and that the relationship was consensual rather than coercive.

Consequently, the Court held that continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court allowed the application and quashed the charge-sheet dated 15 November 2022, the summoning order dated 6 February 2023, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 183 of 2023 arising from FIR No. 56 of 2022.