Penal Code, 1860–Secs. 376, 376(2)(n) & 507 [Corresponding Secs. 64, 64(2)(m) & 351(4) of BNS, 2023]–FIR for the offence–Declined to be quashed by the High Court–Justification–Appellant is a practising advocate and respondent no. 2 met him for the first time in reference to a case instituted by her against her husband–The relationship continued for a period of three long years which is a considerable period of time–It is a case of consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious–Appellant has unequivocally asserted that during the subsistence of the relationship, no grievance or allegation was ever raised regarding the absence of consent in their physical relations and it was only upon when he refused to fulfil her demand for payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- –FIR was lodged after nearly three months after the last alleged act of sexual intimacy–Respondent no. 2 on her own volition visited and met the appellant on each occasion–Appellant brought up the subject of marriage, respondent no. 2 herself opposed the proposal–She was major and an educated individual–At the relevant time, her marriage was subsisting–FIR is liable to be quashed.
