Factual Matrix 

In the case of Rohit Dinanath Ray v. State of Gujarat, A criminal revision appeal was made against the Sessions Court’s ruling rejecting the accused’s discharge request for an infraction covered by Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860. On May 10, 2018, the complainant filed a First Information Report against the accused for violating Sections 376, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code regarding rape. According to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973, the FIR was quashed. On August 24, 2018, the complainant filed a second FIR, saying that the accused had forcibly engaged in a sexual act with her under the pretext of marriage. The Sessions Judge denied the accused’s request to have the FIR quashed and to be discharged. The accused filed a criminal revision motion with the court after becoming angry.

Analysis of Court Decision 

Justice Gita Gopia of the Gujrat High Court’s Single Judge Bench granted the revision request and overturned the Sessions Judge’s challenged ruling.

The Indian Penal Code’s Section 90 and Explanation II of Section 375, which define consent as an unambiguous voluntary agreement when a woman expresses a desire to engage in a particular sexual act, were referenced by the court. According to the court’s decision, a false promise must have been made with no intention of keeping it. The victim’s misperception of the facts served as justification for the crime, according to the court. The complainant, who was already married at the time of the incident, engaged in physical contact with the defendant, showing that she had no desire to wed or made any commitment to do so. The accused created a friendship on social media and started an intimate relationship, which the court viewed as an extramarital relationship because it occurred during her marriage.

The Court has found that the judge’s inquiry must be restricted to deciding on the facts revealed by the case and the documents when handling an application under Section 227 of the CrPC. The judge is allowed to selectively sift the evidence, but not to separate the wheat from the chaff. The complainant in this instance was a married mother of two, and the accused was aware of their connection. The complainant prolonged her connection with the accused while being aware of its advantages and disadvantages, maybe in the hopes of getting married even after she was divorced. With the complainant’s approval, the FIR was dismissed, and the woman did not get any guarantee of marriage for the sexual offence.

Accordingly, the Court said that no case had been made out against the accused and that there were insufficient reasons to continue the case against the accused in light of the facts that had emerged between the parties. The Court said that this instance included consenting sex. As a result, the Court granted the criminal revision motion and overturned and reversed the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, judgement in question. The FIR that was filed against the Accused was also dismissed.

CASE NAME – Rohit Dinanath Ray v. State of Gujarat, R/Criminal Revision Application No. 434 Of 2021