Court reverse rape case, says sex was consensual
Email
Mumbai High Court quashed a rape case filed by a 29-year-old woman against her former boss, notice that the woman was well conscious that the man was married with two children, and that the case may not result in a judgment.
The division bench of Justice Ranjit More and Justice Anuja Prabhudessai, while reversing the case last week, notice that the relationship looks consensual and therefore could not fit into the definition of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Incidentally, it was the victim who filed a petition at the High Court to quash the case, stating that she agreed for an “out-of-court” settlement with the 37-year-old accused.
According to the petition, the complainant lost a job with an airline company, after which she approached the accused for a job. Soon they became close and had physical relations – on the excuse of marriage. The accused had allegedly promised that the he would divorce his wife and get married to the victim, which he later refused.
She was later terminated from the job as well. In June last year, the woman lodged a complaint of maltreat and offend her humility against the accused. She then threatened the accused that she would kidnap one of his two children if he did not agree to marry her. The wife of the accused then immediately lodged a complaint against the complainant. The victim then leveled the charge of rape against the accused.
The woman’s lawyers, Mahesh Vaswani, Dharini Nagda and Anushree Kulkarni, pointed out a sanction term signed between the victim, the accused and the wife of the accused.
Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, representing the accused and his wife, pointed out that his clients too had no objection if the case lodged by wife of the accused against the alleged rape victim was quashed.
The court then examined the facts of the entire case and reversed all the cases, including the rape complaint filed by the parties against each other.
“The woman is an adult and was well aware that the accused is a married man. In spite of knowing this fact, she accompanied him to several places and had intercourse with him without there being any misconception of any fact. In our considered view, the FIR does not prima facie disclose that the accused had made false promise of marriage simply with an intention of satisfying his desire or that he had cheated or defraud the woman,” observed the court.
