In Anil Sharma v. State of U.T., Chandigarh & Ors., P&H High Court quashed an FIR registered u/s 376(2) IPC, observing that the woman voluntarily engaged in an extra-marital affair with petitioner and established a consensual physical relationship over a prolonged period.

Briefly, the facts of the case were that the petitioner was the skating coach of the prosecutrix’s children, and they developed friendly relations. The petitioner also used to visit their house and became a family friend.

However, allegations surfaced when the husband of the prosecutrix was informed by petitioner’s wife about a suspected relationship, following which he confronted his wife and discovered that she had undergone an abortion without his knowledge. Thereafter, husband of the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the petitioner, alleging forcible sexual relations and blackmail.

The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and continued for a significant period. He also referred to the hotel entry and contended that the room was booked by the prosecutrix and bore her signature. It was further pointed out that the prosecutrix was a mature and educated woman, and no evidence of coercion or blackmail was found during the investigation.

While analysing Sections 375 and 90 IPC, Court emphasized that consent must be voluntary and informed, and that consent obtained under a “misconception of fact” must be clearly established.

It also highlighted the absence of any evidence supporting the allegations of blackmail, noting that even the State admitted that no such material was found during the investigation.

Accordingly, Court held that essential ingredients of rape were not made out, as the relationship was consensual and not vitiated by a misconception of fact, and quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings.

On the facts, Court noted that the prosecutrix was a “qualified dentist, a major lady having 2 sons,” and that the relationship between the parties developed gradually and continued over a long duration without any immediate complaint.

Court observed, “The only reasonable inference which can be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case is that respondent No. 3 and the petitioner had developed a friendship, and later on, they also developed a physical relationship.”

It also highlighted the absence of any evidence supporting the allegations of blackmail, noting that even the State admitted that no such material was found during the investigation.

Accordingly, Court held that essential ingredients of rape were not made out, as the relationship was consensual and not vitiated by a misconception of fact, and quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings.