- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shivashankar Alias Shiva v. State Of Karnataka And Another .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant was facing prosecution in C.C. No. 6820/2015 (Crime No. 254/2014) for alleged offences under Sections 376, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No. 2, the complainant, asserted that she had cohabited with the appellant for about eight years, during which time he applied kumkum to her forehead, tied an arishina thread around her neck, and promised to marry her. When the appellant purportedly attempted to withdraw from the relationship, she filed the present criminal complaint alleging rape and related offences.
The appellant sought quashing of the proceedings before the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 769/2016. The High Court, by order dated 22 September 2016, refused to quash the case. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, culminating in the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether sexual relations spanning eight years—during which the parties lived together “like a married couple”—could amount to the offence of rape on the ground of an alleged false promise to marry.
- Whether, in view of these facts, the criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the complainant’s own narrative established an eight-year cohabitation during which the parties treated each other as husband and wife. Without pronouncing on the legal validity of any marriage, the Court held that such a relationship made it “difficult to sustain” the charge of rape.
Even assuming the appellant had made a false promise of marriage, the Court reasoned that sexual intercourse occurring within a long-standing, marriage-like relationship cannot be categorised as rape under Section 376 IPC when the complainant herself acknowledged living as man and wife. On this basis, the essential ingredients of the offence were not met.
Having found the rape charge unsustainable, the Court deemed it unnecessary to examine the ancillary allegations under Sections 420, 323 and 506 IPC. It therefore set aside the High Court’s refusal to quash and terminated the criminal proceedings.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the High Court’s order dated 22 September 2016 is set aside, and the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 6820/2015 (Crime No. 254/2014) against the appellant are quashed.
Implications: The ruling immediately ends the prosecution against the appellant, offering no broader ratio beyond the specific factual context of an eight-year cohabitation. No new precedent was expressly laid down.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned order dated 22-09-2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 769/2016, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 6820/2015 arising out of Crime No. 254/2014, for the offence punishable under sections 376, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the ‘IPC’).
3. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant-accused is that he has raped respondent no. 2-complainant. We find from the complaint filed by the complainant that respondent no. 2-complainant has lived with the appellant for period of about eight years.
4. Further, respondent no. 2-complainant has stated that the appellant “pretended to have loved me” on the promise of marriage, that he applied the Kumkum on her forehead, and tied the Arishina thread to her neck. She further stated that she has been treating the appellant as her husband for the past eight years, and now he is trying to escape from her and cheat her.
5. Though we are not here concerned with the question whether the appellant and the complainant-respondent no. 1 were, in fact, married, we have no doubt that they lived together like a married couple even according to the complainant.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charges levelled against the appellant who may have possibly, made a false promise of marriage to the complainant.
7. It is, however, difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for eight years, as ‘rape’ especially in the face of the complainant's own allegation that they lived together as man and wife.
8. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the aforesaid impugned order passed by the High Court, and quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 6820/2015 arising out of Crime No. 254/2014, initiated against the appellant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).454/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-09-2016 in CRLP No. 769/2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka At Bengaluru)
Shivashankar alias Shiva.….Appellants
v.
State of Karnataka & Anr.….Respondent
(Before S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.)
For.….Petitioner(s) Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranji Thomas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Niraj Gupta, AOR
Ms. Pallavi Malhotra, Adv.
Mrs. Anshu Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Kuber Boddh, Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Nidhi, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
9. Leave granted.
10. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Alert