Bombay HC Quashes Rape Charges, Says Delay in FIR Can't Be Excused by Fear of Defamation

Post By 24law
December 17, 2024

The Bombay High Court quashed rape charges against a man, ruling that merely claiming a threat of defamation cannot justify a delay in filing an FIR. The proceedings arose from an FIR registered under Sections 376(n)(2) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Aurangabad Bench held that the relationship between the applicant (first accused) and the complainant was consensual and did not meet the legal criteria for rape under Section 375 of the IPC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice R.W. Joshi observed, “We are also required to take into consideration the conduct of the informant. If the first alleged act was of the year September 2017, which she says that it was by way of intoxicating her, then even after she became pregnant from applicant No.1 she has not lodged any report. Merely by saying that she was threatened or was under fear that she would be defamed, she cannot just put an excuse. Further, she is not explaining as to why she allowed the name of applicant No.1 to be recorded as the father of the son born to them.”

Background

The complainant had filed an FIR accusing the first applicant (the man) of engaging in sexual relations with her under false promises of marriage, with the alleged assistance of the second applicant (first applicant's mother). According to the complainant, the first applicant’s mother gave her juice laced with intoxicants, following which the first applicant allegedly raped her. She further claimed that she was threatened with the release of compromising videos and was pressured to hand over money and gold. A male child was later born, and the first applicant’s name was listed as the father on the child’s birth certificate. The complainant stated that she was threatened to relinquish custody of the child and feared defamation and physical harm.

Court’s Observations

The High Court scrutinized the complainant’s conduct and noted her delay in filing the FIR until 2019, despite alleging that the first incident occurred in 2017. The Court found it difficult to reconcile her claims with her actions, particularly allowing the first applicant’s name to appear as the father on the child’s birth certificate. “It is hard to believe that a mother would help son to commit rape on a lady in such a fashion and then the victim/prosecutrix would keep quiet and allows the child from such rapist/delivered,” the Bench remarked.

The Court emphasized that the facts of the case indicated a consensual relationship rather than coercion or force. It concluded, “We are of the opinion that the relationship between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2 appear to be of consensual nature. No offence is made out under Section 375 of Indian Penal Code.” Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Application.