The petitioner was accused of rape and other offenses by the complainant. Despite the petitioner's claim that the relationship was consensual, the court found sufficient grounds in the FIR and accompanying evidence to proceed with the case. The court emphasized that the allegations indicated non-consensual acts and stated that it was not within their jurisdiction to conduct a mini-trial or evaluate the defense at this stage. Thus, the petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

1) Rule and Hearing

• The rule was made returnable forthwith.
• With consent from all parties, the petition was heard finally.

2) Petitioner's Request

• The petitioner sought to quash C.R. No. 490 of 2023, registered at Karad Taluka Police Station for offenses under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504, and 506 of the IPC.
• During the petition's pendency, a charge-sheet was filed on 26th September 2023 in R.C.C. No. 378 of 2023.
• The petitioner was allowed to amend the petition to challenge the proceedings.

3) Representation

• Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi represented the petitioner.
• Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh represented the respondent No. 2.
• Smt. Anamika Malhotra represented the State.

4) Complainant's Allegations

• The complainant obtained Khulanama from her husband as per Muslim practices.
• She resides with her four-year-old son in Kale, Taluka-Karad.
• The petitioner, her neighbor since May 2022, allegedly raped her and borrowed money without repayment.
• Specific instances of rape and forced unnatural sex were detailed.
• The petitioner's family allegedly abused and threatened the complainant.

5) Court's Initial Opinion

• The court suggested the petitioner consider a discharge application.
• The petitioner insisted on proceeding with the hearing.

6) Petitioner's Defense

• The relationship was portrayed as consensual.
• Emphasis was placed on the complainant's prior marriage and the improbability of an interfaith marriage.
• Unexplained delay in filing the FIR was highlighted.
• Arguments were made about the misuse of rape laws in consensual relationships.

7) Complainant's Support

• The complainant's counsel and the State supported the allegations.
• Medico-legal reports indicated forcible intercourse could not be ruled out.

8) Court's Analysis

• The court acknowledged the possibility of an intimate relationship but emphasized that non-consensual acts were clearly alleged.
• It was noted that consent could be withdrawn, making subsequent acts non-consensual.

9) Precedents and Legal Standards

• Cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that High Courts cannot conduct mini-trials in quashing petitions.
• Specific cases:
  • Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand
  • V. Ravikumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
  • Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
• Statements of prosecutrix to be believed at this stage as per Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat.

10) Conclusion

• The petition was dismissed.
• Rule was discharged.