Prosecution for Rape Quashed in Absence of Prima Facie Evidence or Support for Non-Consensual Intercourse.

The petitioner sought to quash a criminal proceeding (G.R. Case No. 923 of 2017) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The de facto complainant and the petitioner met through social media and interacted for three months via WhatsApp regarding potential investments.

The complainant voluntarily visited the petitioner at a hotel in Kolkata on October 26 and October 28, 2017. During the second visit, she went to his room, consumed a drink, and engaged in conversation.

She claimed that after returning home by cab, she noticed marks on her body and "realized" she had been raped.

The complaint was lodged nearly two months after the alleged incident.

Investigation resulted in a charge sheet filed on July 22, 2018, of which the Magistrate took cognizance on August 23, 2018.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation, including the victim's Section 164 CrPC statement, prima facie constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC

2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the court warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC

The court primarily applied Section 376 of the IPC regarding rape and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

It relied on the landmark principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allow quashing where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence.

The court further cited Jothiragawan v. State and Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that voluntary components of a relationship and consensual acts do not constitute rape, especially when allegations of coercion or fraud are absent or improbable.

The court observed that the relationship originated through social media and the complainant’s presence at the hotel was entirely voluntary.

Crucially, the complainant never claimed to have lost consciousness while in the hotel room having a drink; her assertion that she "realized" the rape occurred only after reaching home was deemed a prima facie "afterthought" lacking support from the written complaint's context.

The court noted significant evidentiary infirmities: the complainant specifically refused a medical examination, and in her Section 164 CrPC statement, she claimed she could not remember the hotel incident.

Furthermore, the hotel authorities provided information to the police that rendered the allegations "improbable".

Applying the Bhajan Lal criteria, the court found that the ingredients of the alleged offence were not even prima facie established, as the acts occurred within the contours of a willing and voluntary interaction.

The High Court allowed the revisional application and quashed the proceedings in G.R. case No. 923 of 2017, including the order of cognizance dated August 23, 2018, on the grounds that the evidence failed to meet the threshold for a Section 376 IPC charge.