'FIR Was Lodged To Take Revenge': Allahabad High Court Quashes Rape Case, Calls It 'An Example Of Failed Relationship'

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a criminal case alleging rape arising out of a failed consensual relationship after it found that the FIR was lodged to take 'revenge' after the accused decided to withdraw from the relationship and marry another woman.A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh noted that the material on record reflected that both parties were in a consensual relationship for a considerable period of time and the conduct of the prosecutrix did not support the allegations that the physical relationship was established against her will or without her consent.The single judge thus allowed an application under Section 528 BNSS and quashed the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with the offences under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC."…this Court is of the opinion that in the instant case, no offence of rape is made out against the applicant and the instant first information report was lodged by the prosecutrix as she was annoyed by the behaviour of the applicant and was unwilling to leave him. It appears from the conduct of the victim that the first information report was lodged by her to take revenge from the applicant", the bench observed in its 33-page order."It appears from the conduct of the victim that the first information report was lodged by her to take revenge from the applicant,” it added. Briefly put, the woman alleged that she came in contact with the accused through Facebook and developed a relationship. She claimed that he established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage and later refused to marry her after his marriage was fixed elsewhere.However, after examining the statements of the parties and the material on record, the Court found that the relationship had continued consensually for around 1.5 years.It further noted that the prosecutrix, a major and educated woman, herself stated under her Section 164 CrPC statement that she had physical relations with the applicant around 30 to 40 times during this period.The Court observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had made a false promise to marry from the very inception of the relationship. Instead, it found that the relationship had subsequently broken down.The bench noted that when the applicant withdrew himself from the relationship and this decision was not accepted by the victim, she lodged the FIR against him, possibly after the 'Tilak' ceremony of the applicant.Justice Singh described the matter as "an example of a failed relationship" and stressed that criminal law cannot be employed merely because such a relationship ultimately does not culminate in marriage.The Court also rejected the stance of the victim that she was under the misconception that the applicant would marry her. The bench noted that the victim had not alleged that the applicant had no intention to marry right from the beginning. Therefore, the basic ingredients constituting an offence of rape are not made out, the Court said. The Court further emphasized thus:"…when a woman of competent age, having sufficient understanding of the physical activities in which she is involved on the basis of a promise of marriage, understands the risks associated with such a physical relationship as there is a significant difference between marriage and a mere promise of marriage…This Court finds that by no stretch of imagination the prosecutrix could have given her consent for sexual relationship under misconception of marriage".The Court added that an educated and independent adult who voluntarily enters into a romantic relationship, after exercising free and conscious choice, must be aware of the inherent uncertainties attached to such relationships.The bench, however, acknowledged that many individuals are not able to accept the breakdown of a relationship with maturity, and that emotional distress, disappointment, or wounded feelings influence their subsequent actions."In such situations, allegations may sometimes arise which are rooted more in personal grievance than in the commission of a criminal offence. Courts are therefore required to exercise caution and discernment while examining such allegations, particularly where the material on record reflects a consensual relationship between adults", the bench cautioned.The court further remarked that it has seen in a "large number of cases" that there is a “growing trend” that consensual relationships going on for a prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.Against this backdrop, the Court concluded that permitting the prosecution to continue the present criminal proceedings against the applicant would amount to "gross abuse of the process of law".The Court held that the case squarely fell within the first, fifth and seventh category carved out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, observing that the criminal proceedings appeared to have been instituted with...

'FIR Was Lodged To Take Revenge': Allahabad High Court Quashes Rape Case, Calls It 'An Example Of Failed Relationship'

Sparsh Upadhyay

High Court quashed the FIR after finding that the parties had remained in a consensual relationship for about 1.5 years.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

'FIR Was Lodged To Take Revenge': Allahabad High Court Quashes Rape Case, Calls It 'An Example Of Failed Relationship'

Sparsh Upadhyay

High Court quashed the FIR after finding that the parties had remained in a consensual relationship for about 1.5 years.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers