Forced Sex In Love Relation Still Crime: <\/em>In a recent Judgment, Justice Pranjal Das<\/strong> of the Gauhati High Court<\/strong> refused to quash a criminal case involving rape<\/a> and POCSO<\/a><\/strong> charges, even though both sides had settled the matter<\/strong> and were planning marriage. The case shows how a man can still be made to face trial even after the dispute is resolved at a personal level.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The case started with an FIR<\/a> alleging that the accused entered the house and committed rape on a minor girl. Later, both families entered into a compromise and claimed that the allegations were made under external pressure<\/strong> and that no such incident actually happened<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The father of the girl supported the compromise and stated that the case was influenced and that nothing had happened, and he also said he had no objection if the case was closed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the prosecution opposed the plea and highlighted that the girl had consistently alleged rape during the entire investigation, which weighed heavily against the accused<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court focused more on the facts of the case rather than the compromise. It clearly refused to accept the argument that a relationship or future marriage can dilute serious criminal allegations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court Said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEven if a man and a woman are in a relationship; that would certainly not give a license to the man to commit rape upon the girl.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It further reinforced that consent is central and cannot be assumed<\/strong> from a relationship:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThough marital rape is still not criminalized in the country, but even in a premarital love relationship between a man and a woman; committing forceful physical relationship upon her against her wish would still be a criminal act.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also gave weight to the fact that the girl was a minor at the time of the alleged incident<\/strong>, which legally makes the matter far more serious, regardless of later developments like compromise or proposed marriage<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What becomes clear from this case is that once an allegation of this nature is recorded and supported by statements during investigation, the system gives very little space to the accused<\/strong>, even if the complainant side later retracts or settles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0The man remains exposed to full criminal prosecution, and personal settlement carries almost no practical value<\/strong> in such situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the end, the Court refused to quash the proceedings<\/strong> and dismissed the petition, meaning the accused will have to face full trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case reflects that once such allegations enter the system, even a later change in stance by the complainant side may not protect the man from prolonged legal consequences<\/strong>, leaving him with limited remedies and a long trial ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)<\/a> \u2013 Section 528<\/strong><\/td> Power of High Court to quash criminal proceedings<\/td> Used by accused to seek quashing of FIR and charges<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) \u2013 Section 64<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for rape<\/td> Core allegation against accused<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) \u2013 Section 329(4)<\/strong><\/td> Related to house trespass\/entry for offence<\/td> Allegation of entering victim\u2019s house<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) \u2013 Section 351(2)<\/strong><\/td> Criminal intimidation<\/td> Threat allegation after incident<\/td><\/tr> POCSO Act \u2013 Section 4<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for penetrative sexual assault on minor<\/td> Applied because victim was minor at time of incident<\/td><\/tr> CrPC \u2013 Section 482<\/strong><\/td> Inherent powers of High Court<\/td> Legal basis discussed for quashing<\/td><\/tr> CrPC \u2013 Section 320<\/strong><\/td> Compounding of offences<\/td> Distinguished from quashing power<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n