In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court has quashed an FIR against a man accused of sexual assault, observing that some individuals misuse legal provisions meant to protect women from rape to harass men.
The case involved a petitioner who was previously in a relationship with the complainant, with whom he had consensual physical relations. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, presiding over the matter, noted that the FIR appeared to be an afterthought, bolstered by evidence such as WhatsApp chats and statements made before the magistrate, which demonstrated that the relationship was consensual and not based on false promises of marriage.
“It is true that the provision under which the FIR has been lodged represents one of the most heinous crimes against women. However, it is also an established fact that some people use it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart,” Justice Singh remarked.
The court emphasized that the ingredients of the offence of rape were not met in this case, pointing out that both parties had agreed to enter into a physical relationship voluntarily. The judge stated that this situation exemplified how an innocent person could face undue hardships due to the misuse of penal provisions.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship ended due to disagreements, and after they did not marry, the woman lodged a rape case against the man. On the other hand, the prosecution maintained that there were serious allegations against the petitioner, asserting that he had sexually assaulted the woman.
Delving into the details, the court observed that the constant communication between the parties and their shared personal details suggested a mutual and consensual relationship. “It is not disputed by the petitioner that the parties had entered into a physical relationship; however, he claims the same to be consensual. It is also established from the statement recorded under section 164 of the CrPC of the prosecutrix that the parties had taken steps to get married, however, the families did not agree due to the caste factor,” the judgment read.
Further, despite his family’s reservations, the petitioner was willing to marry the woman, who later lost interest and entered into another relationship. “The WhatsApp chats between the parties also show that the prosecutrix had sent several messages to the petitioner and conveyed information regarding her decision to get married to another person. Therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but an afterthought,” the court concluded.
