The Court noted that the FIR clearly alleged forced, non-consensual sex and remarked that a relationship between two adults did not justify sexual assault.
“Insofar as the defense in the Petition that, there was a consensual relationship between the parties is concerned, it is trite that a relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist,” the Court added.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the allegations in the FIR did not demonstrate continuous consent on part of the complainant and that although she was inclined to marry the petitioner, she was not inclined towards a sexual relationship with him.
Therefore, the Court opined that allegations in the FIR prima-facie constituted the commission of the alleged offense and that the defense of the petitioner could not be tested at this stage. The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Priyanka Jaiswal v. The State of Jharkhand and Others where it was held that the High Court could not hold a mini trial while exercising writ jurisdiction.
It also cited the apex court’s decision in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat to assert that statement of prosecutrix is to be believed at the stage.
Accordingly, the Court held that the FIR did not lack ingredient of the offences alleged and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.
Source: Barandbench
