Consensual Physical Relationship Between Mature Adults in Live-In Arrangement Does Not Constitute Offence of Rape.

The Applicant and the Complainant, aged 26 and 33 respectively, entered into a relationship after meeting at a Yoga Camp in February 2022.

They lived together in a guest house in Rishikesh starting April 9, 2022, and admitted to having prior consensual physical relations.

On May 22, 2022, the Complainant lodged FIR No. 0034 of 2022 alleging that on the previous day, the Applicant assaulted, restrained, and sexually assaulted her following an argument over flight bookings.

In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., and as PW1, she stated she did not wish to press charges as the Applicant felt remorse.

Medical reports showed no signs of forced intercourse or injuries to the head/face.

The Applicant moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Session Trial No. 11 of 2022.

1. Whether the consensual physical relationship between the parties, followed by a fallout, can be criminalized as rape under Section 376 of the IPC.

2. Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings, in light of the complainant's statements and lack of medical evidence, constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The Court applied Section 376 of the IPC regarding rape and Sections 323, 504, 506, and 342 of the IPC.

The Court relied on Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2019 SC 327), which distinguishes between rape and consensual sex by examining if the accused had a mala fide motive from the inception.

The Court cited Uday v. State of Karnataka ((2003) 4 SCC 46) to establish that consensual physical relationships between lovers do not constitute rape.

The Court applied Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528), which condemns the tendency to give broken relationships the "colour of criminality".

The Court observed that the parties were mature adults—the complainant being older than the applicant—who voluntarily entered into a live-in relationship.

The evidence indicated that physical relations were established five to six times prior to the incident, suggesting a pattern of consent.

The Court noted that the medical report failed to support the prosecution's story of force or brutality.

Analyzing the complainant’s Section 164 statement, where she admitted the applicant "took care" during the act so as not to hurt her, the Court reasoned the act was consensual and the FIR was likely a result of "rage and anger" over a trivial altercation.

The Court emphasized that the law cannot be invoked to criminalize the mere failure or dissolution of a relationship.

The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the chargesheet dated July 14, 2022, the summoning order dated July 19, 2022, and the entire proceedings of Session Trial No. 11 of 2022 against the Applicant.