Consensual sexual relationship under abuse of authority by public servant attracts Section 376C of IPC.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was accused by the respondent of entering into a fraudulent marriage by claiming he was single while already married

The respondent alleged they performed religious marriage rituals in 2018, lived together at various postings, and maintained a physical relationship until June 2020

After an alleged assault and discovery of the petitioner’s existing marriage, the respondent filed a complaint. The Trial Court took cognizance of offences under Sections 493, 494, and 323 of the IPC

The petitioner sought quashment of the proceedings (M.Cr.C. No. 27611/2026), arguing the relationship was consensual and that the respondent’s own prior marriage was never legally dissolved

Simultaneously, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail (M.Cr.C. No. 23042/2026) after previously failing to appear and escaping custody

The Court primarily applied the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023) for quashing proceedings, following the criteria established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which permits quashing only when allegations, taken at face value, fail to disclose an offence

Regarding sexual conduct, the Court applied Section 376C of the IPC, which pertains to "sex by abuse of authority" by a public servant or person in a fiduciary relationship, noting that such acts are punishable even if consensual

For the bail plea, the Court considered Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023

The Court rejected the quashment prayer, reasoning that at the stage of cognizance, the court only needs to find sufficient grounds for proceeding

It emphasized that since the petitioner was a police officer in a position of authority at the time of the alleged relationship, the defense of "consent" does not automatically invalidate the charges, as the conduct could fall under the category of sex by abuse of authority under Section 376C IPC

The Court further noted that the validity of the respondent's prior divorce is a matter of evidence and not a ground for quashment at this stage

Regarding the bail application, despite the petitioner’s history of evading the lower court, the High Court evaluated the "factual scenario in toto" to grant relief

However, it allowed M.Cr.C. No. 23042/2026, granting the petitioner anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, one solvent surety, and specific conditions, including surrendering to the trial court within ten days and cooperating with the investigation