Honey Trap Designed To Extort Money: Gujarat High Court Quashes Rape Case
The Bench noted that keeping the video on, indulging into physical relations, regularly accompanying the applicant proved consensual relations not rape.
The Gujarat High Court while quashing an FIR for rape, observed that where a woman (purported victim) voluntarily engages in a physical relationship while recording the act to demand money, the essential elements of rape are not met. The Court noted that the matter was nothing but consensual relations made to subsequently extort the money.
In the present matter, the Court observed that the sequence of events, starting from a Facebook friend request sent by the complainant to multiple voluntary meetings, indicated a consensual trajectory. The surreptitious video recording of a physical encounter on October 23, 2020, followed by reported demands for ₹60,00,000 and jewellery, led the Court to conclude that the allegations were maliciously instituted. Consequently, the proceedings were deemed inherently improbable and fit for quashing under the inherent powers of the High Court.
Justice M. K. Thakker observed, “…it emerges that this is a case of honey trap and not, in any manner, a case of rape. Keeping the video on, indulging into physical relations, sending friend request, time and again accompanied the applicant is nothing but consensual relations made by the complainant which was subsequently used to extort the money. In that background, the applicant cannot be sent for the trial for false allegations. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the case of applicant falls under the criteria (i) and (v) of the judgment in the case of Bhajanlal (supra)”.
Advocate Rahul R. Dholakia appeared for the applicant and Ronak Raval, APP for the respondent.
The first informant, a 38-year-old beauty parlor owner, initiated contact with the applicant, via Facebook in early 2019. She alleged that on various occasions, she was drugged or intimidated into physical relations, specifically citing an incident on October 23, 2020 where she was allegedly assaulted while feeling dizzy.
However, the applicant contended that the complainant had recorded their physical relations on her mobile phone to blackmail him, supported by call transcripts showing demands for settlement money and his wife’s ornaments.
The applicant moved the High Court for quashing the FIR registered at Dumas Police Station, Surat, for offences under Sections 376(1), 114, and 506(1)(2) of the IPC. While the State argued that the FSL report confirmed the existence of a video of the physical relations and that a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was on record, the applicant relied on the guidelines set in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal.
The Single Judge Bench noted that the complainant's conduct, including sending the friend request and repeatedly accompanying the applicant, pointed toward consensual relations. The Court found it "absurd and inherently improbable" that a victim of rape would purposefully record the act to later extort the accused. Relying on criteria (i) and (v) enunciated in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal & Ors AIR 1992 SC 604, the Court held that the FIR did not prima facie constitute a cognizable offence and was a malicious attempt at extortion.
The High Court allowed the application and quashed the FIR registered with Dumas Police Station, Surat, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Cause Title: X v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:26565)
Appearances:
Applicant: Rahul R. Dholakia, Advocate.
Respondent: Ronak Raval, APP.