The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a rape case against a 23-year-old youth booked on a complaint by a woman who claimed that she had withdrawn her consent for sex during their encounter in a hotel room.
“A relationship born of mutual volition, even if it founders in disappointment, cannot, save in clearest of cases, be transmuted into an offence under the criminal law,” said the Karnataka High Court while quashing an FIR registered against a 23-year-old man accused of rape a woman he met on dating app Bumble.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said so while allowing a petition filed by Sampras Anthony who was charged under Section 64 (rape) BNS.
As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the victim become acquainted through the virtual corridors of the dating application ‘Bumble’ and thereafter, nurtured their acquaintance for over years through the exchange of images and conversations upon the platform of Instagram.
On the morning of 11-08-2024, the two resolved to meet in person. After having a meal at a restaurant they proceeded to a hotel where the allegedly indulged in physical intimacy. On the next day the petitioner dropped the complainant back to her apartment.
On the following day, it was alleged that the complainant got herself examined at Ramaiah hospital and comes to know that she is a victim of sexual assault. Following which she lodged the complaint. The petitioner was arrested and police after investigation filed its chargesheet.
Seeking to quash the offence the petitioner argued that social media platform meetings result in several activities. Petitioner and complainant met on ‘Bumble’ and continued to exchange photographs, video and chats on Instagram.
It was argued that the photographs and chats would clearly demonstrate falsity of the complainant’s claim. It was alleged that the Investigating Officer has deliberately not made that a part of the charge sheet.
It was argued that all the acts are all purely consensual acts between the petitioner and the complainant who has been active on Bumble for a long time.
The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that petitioner had sexually assaulted the complainant and that the same cannot be termed as a consensual sex. It was argued that even in the case of sex on promise of marriage, BNS prescribes punishment. Though this is not a case of promise of marriage, whether it was a consensual or not, is a matter of trial, the State said.
Following which it held “If the present prosecution were permitted to meander into a trial, it would be nothing but a ritualistic procession towards miscarriage of justice and indeed become an abuse of the process of the law.”
The court thus quashed the FIR.
Case Title: Sampras Anthony AND State of Karnataka & ANR
