In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has refused to quash a rape case, emphasizing that an intimate relationship between adults does not justify sexual assault on a partner. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale delivered this ruling on June 28, 2024, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2023.
Background:
The case involves a 23-year-old man (the petitioner) accused of raping a woman (the complainant) under the pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that the petitioner, who was her neighbor, had forcibly established sexual relations with her on multiple occasions despite her resistance. She claimed that he had promised to marry her but later distanced himself and avoided her.
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR registered against him at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Consent in Intimate Relationships:
The court emphasized that a relationship between two adult individuals does not justify sexual assault by one partner on the other. Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale observed, “A relationship may be consensual at the beginning but the same state may not remain so for all time to come. Whenever one of the partners show their unwillingness to indulge in a sexual relationship, the character of the relationship as ‘consensual’ ceases to exist.”
2. Quashing of FIR:
The court refused to quash the FIR, stating that the allegations prima facie constitute the commission of the alleged offense. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Priyanka Jaiswal v. The State of Jharkhand and Others, reiterating that “at the time of examining the prayer for quashing of the criminal proceedings, the Court exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction can neither undertake to conduct a mini trial, nor enter into appreciation of evidence of a particular case.”
3. Credibility of Complainant’s Statement:
Referring to the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, the court emphasized the importance of believing the testimony of a victim of sexual assault. It stated, “Viewing the evidence of the girl or the women, who complains of rape or sexual molestation with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion, is to justify the charge of male chauvinism in a male dominated society.”
The court dismissed arguments by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, who attempted to portray the relationship as consensual and raised issues about the complainant’s marital status and the delay in filing the FIR.
Also Read
Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh, representing the complainant, drew attention to the medico-legal examination report that indicated the possibility of forcible sexual intercourse. Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. Anamika Malhotra supported the complainant’s case on behalf of the state.
