In Brief
The appellant was accused of rape, extortion, and criminal intimidation based on allegations of a 16-year intimate relationship with the complainant, allegedly initiated through a false promise of marriage in 2006. The Court quashed the prosecution, holding that the continuation of consensual sexual relations over such a prolonged period, coupled with the complainant's delayed complaint (only filed when the appellant married another woman) and her own portrayal as his wife, negated any claim of vitiation of consent. The Court concluded that absent evidence of mala fide intention from inception, allowing prosecution would constitute gross abuse of process, distinguishing between breach of promise and rape in consensual relationships.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.