Merely Saying That There Was Threat Of Being Defamed Cannot Be An Excuse For Delay In Filing FIR: Bombay HC Quashes Rape Charges
The Bombay High Court quashed rape charges against a person accused of rape while holding that merely saying that there was a threat of being defamed cannot be an excuse for delay in filing an FIR.
The Court quashed the proceedings arising from an FIR registered under Sections 376(n)(2) and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Aurangabad Bench noted that the relationship between the Applicant and the complainant was consensual and did not fulfil the requirements for prosecution under Section 375 of the IPC.
A Division Bench of 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.”
Senior Advocate R.S. Deshmukh appeared for the Applicants, while APP A.M. Phule represented the Respondents.
The complainant filed an FIR alleging that the first Applicant engaged in sexual relations with her under false promises of marriage and that his mother, the second Applicant (mother of the first Applicant), aided the alleged acts. According to the FIR, the complainant claimed that the first Applicant’s mother gave her juice laced with intoxicants, after which the first Applicant allegedly committed rape. She further alleged that threats to release a compromising video and demands for money and gold followed.
The complainant stated that a male child was born and the first Applicant was listed as the father on the child’s birth certificate. However, she asserted that she faced intimidation and threats from the Applicants to give custody of the child to them, leading to fear of defamation and physical harm.
The High Court noted that the conduct of the complainant, including her failure to lodge a report until 2019 and allowing the first Applicant’s name to be recorded as the father of the child, did not support the allegations of rape.
“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.
Consequently, the Court held that “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.
Cause Title: Pushpraj & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:28705-DB)
Appearance:
Applicants: Senior Advocate R.S. Deshmukh; Advocate D.R. Deshmukh
Respondents: APP A.M. Phule; Advocates R.G. Nirmal and S.S. Gangakhedkar