[Rape on pretext of marriage] Madras High Court quashes case against Magistrate

The Madras High Court recently quashed a case involving allegations of rape on the false pretext of marriage against a District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, upon finding the allegations levelled against him by a lawyer to be unbelievable. .Justice M Nirmal Kumar found that the complainant did not resist the overtures of the accused, rather that she "succumbed to them.".The Court found that the complainant was intelligent and well-aware of the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to, which is why "she kept it as a secret as long as she could.".The fact that the complainant was married to another at the time of the alleged affair also led the Court to opine that the complainant had not been misled into entering a relationship."The 2nd respondent (complainant) did not resist the overtures of the 1st petitioner and, in fact succumbed to them. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. She must have known the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of her marital status and continued to have sexual relationship on several occasions. In this case, the sexual relationship between them continued for five years which cannot be termed as rape. The facts of the case and the acknowledgment of the 2nd respondent (complainant) about the physical relationship between them would not constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC", the Court said..Relying on Supreme Court rulings, the Court pointed out that in cases involving an alleged misconception of facts, the Court has to examine the facts to discern whether it is a case of rape or consensual sex. .The judge went on to factor in the following aspects to quash the case against the accused:The complainant was a well-educated woman of 36 years and an advocate;She was married at the time of the alleged affair;The relationship between with the complainant and the accused, including the physical relationship, continued for nearly five years;The complainant admitted to her physical relationship with the accused during subsistence of her marriage with her husband. On these admissions, the relationship of the accused with the complainant could not be termed as rape and it will not come under the definition of Section 375, Indian Penal Code (which defines "rape");The complainant clearly, in unequivocal terms by her acts and own admission, willingly participated in sexual activity with the accused not once, but on several occasions over a period more than five years..In this case, a lawyer, who was a married woman herself, had claimed that she entered into a sexual relationship with the accused judge after he promised to marry her and take care of their son. To this end, the lawyer alleged that the accused had also assured her that he would take steps to dissolve the marriage between the complainant and her husband. The complainant and the accused were allegedly in a relationship between 2015-2019. .As per the complainant, the relationship came to an end after she came to know that the accused was already married. She came to know of this after his wife was overheard on a call and after the wife warned the complainant against continuing the affair. The complainant also alleged that she had given loans to the accused judge on several occasions, again on his alleged promise to marry her. .The accused judge had denied the complainant's allegations. The Court was told that he was a batchmate of the complainant in law college. He maintained that from time to time, she had sought his professional assistance which he provided. He added that he had been paid professional fees for the legal advice given, which the complainant was now misrepresenting as being personal loans. .The Court ultimately quashed the case against the judge, observing that it is not the case of the complainant that she was forcibly raped and, rather, she "consciously with active mind participated in the act.""Further, it is not the case of passive submission in the face of any psychological pressure exerted and there was a tacit consent and the tacit consent given by her was not the result of any misconception created in her mind. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting and show no objection. Thus, there is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex," the Court said. .The Court further found no merit in the allegation of cheating levelled against the accused with respect to the money sent by the complainant to the accused. It also found the allegations of "criminal intimidation" levelled against the judge's wife to be meritless. .The FIR filed against the Judge and his wife was, therefore, quashed, with Justice Kumar observing:"The acknowledged consensual physical relationship between the parties would not constitute an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. Thus, allowing to continue the investigation in Crime No.07 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent Police would amount to abuse of process of Court.".Advocate R John Sathyan appeared for the petitioner judge, whereas Government Advocate A Damodaran represented the State. Advocate BA Sujay Prasanna appeared for the complainant.