Rape prosecution quashed where allegations indicate consensual relationship and FIR is a malicious counter-blast.

The applicant sought the quashing of FIR No. 11214020211262 registered on 18.06.2021 for offenses under Sections 376(1) and 452 of the IPC

The first informant, a 28-year-old married woman, had developed a cordial relationship with the applicant over five years after he provided financial assistance to her family due to her husband's liquor addiction

On 12.06.2021, the applicant entered the informant's parental house at night and engaged in physical relations

A neighbor’s daughter, who was sleeping there, woke up and shouted, leading neighbors to gather and assault the applicant under the impression that he was a thief

Consequently, the applicant filed a prior FIR on 13.06.2021 against the neighbors for assault and violations of the Atrocities Act

The informant filed the impugned rape FIR four days later, on 18.06.2021

The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the abuse of the process of law

It evaluated the definition of "rape" under Section 375 of the IPC and the corresponding punishments under Section 376

The court primarily relied on the guidelines established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), which identifies specific categories where an FIR should be quashed, including when allegations are inherently improbable or when proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance

The court examined the nature of the relationship, noting that the informant admitted to a cordial relationship and feelings of affection toward the applicant due to his financial help

The court observed that during the sexual act, the informant did not raise an alarm; the incident only came to light because a third party (the neighbor's daughter) shouted

This conduct, combined with the fact that the applicant was initially beaten as a "thief" and filed his own FIR for assault first, strongly suggested the relationship was consensual

Furthermore, the court highlighted the four-day delay in filing the rape FIR, concluding it was a "counter-blast" to the applicant's earlier complaint

The court reasoned that sexual intercourse between consenting adults cannot be converted into a prosecution for rape simply because the incident was discovered by others

The court found that the allegations were improbable and the prosecution was manifestly attended with mala fides

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 11214020211262 registered with Kamrej Police Station, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom