Editors Pick

Bombay HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against ‘Rape’ accused who married the Victim

Ashok KM
10 July 2016 4:52 AM GMT
Bombay HC refuses to quash criminal proceedings against ‘Rape’ accused who married the Victim
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man who married a lady who had accused him of raping her.

The lady had accused a man for repeatedly inducing her to have physical relationship with him with a false promise to marriage. The lady had to undergo abortion twice and later she complained to police after he refused to solemnise the marriage and avoided her.

The Public prosecutor submitted before the Court that, the Police machinery made several attempts to apprehend him. The investigating authority was required to issue a look out notice against the accused since he was not available for investigation and was absconding. The accused, through a writ petition, claimed that he has married the complainant on 29th April and complainant submitted that she is consenting for quashing the FIR.

However the court observed: “The conduct of the accused is required to be deprecated. It can be noted that after realising that FIR has been registered and the investigating machinery is looking out for him, he had come to Mumbai and purportedly solemnised the marriage on 29 April 2016. It is pertinent to note that the declaration that both the parties have married to each other was executed on 29 April 2016. The present petition was filed on 30 April 2016 and the affidavit tendered by the complainant giving consent for quashing the impugned FIR was affirmed on 30 April 2016. The approach of the accused is apparently under clouds of suspicion. In view of the circumstances, although the Petitioner and the third Respondent have solemnised the marriage as stated by them, we are not inclined to quash the FIR under challenge.”

Read the order here.

Next Story