Despite Forceful Rape By Accused, Prosecutrix Did Not Lodge FIR & Instead Married Him: Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Rape Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed an FIR against a rape accused, observing that despite the alleged rape, the prosecutrix did not file an FIR and on the contrary, married the accused.
The Court stated that the story narrated by the victim before the police station regarding the commission of rape on her was such that “no reasonable man will believe.” The Bench noted that the 31-year-old major victim remained quiet after the alleged rape. The husband (accused) and wife, the Court observed were in a long-standing relationship for more than 5 years as had been stated by the wife under Section 164 of the CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat observed, “Despite forceful rape being committed by the petitioner on her repeatedly for long time, she did not lodge FIR against petitioner on the contrary she also married the petitioner. Said circumstances show that no reasonable man will believe on the story which prosecutrix is narrating before the police station regarding commission of rape on her.”
Sr. Advocate Manish Datt represented the petitioner, while Dy. Govt. Advocate Santosh Yadav appeared for the respondents.
The allegations against the husband were under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-II of the IPC. The petitioner sought the quashing of the FIR and subsequent charges framed by the trial court.
The wife had accused the husband of making a false promise of marriage to establish a physical relationship. However, “for pulling wool over the eyes of law” the two got married and within 2-3 days of marriage filed a petition to declare the marriage void.
After considering the statements of the wife recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the Court observed that the wife had never surrendered to the husband believing the false promise of marriage to be true. “From statement, it is evident that after making false promise of marriage, prosecutrix did not believe petitioner and she did not surrender to him. She has stated that she opposed the advances of petitioner but petitioner being a man and stronger committed forceful rape on her. Consent of prosecutrix was not there,” the Court noted.
The Court remarked, “Since there was marital dispute, therefore, petitioner has filed a petition for divorce. Prosecutrix is major aged more than 31 years. Petitioner and prosecutrix were having long standing relationship for more than 5 years as has been stated by her. She did not lodge any report of rape against petitioner though she did not believe false promise of marriage made by him.”
Consequently, the Bench quashed the FIR registered and the charge sheet filed against the husband.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Sandeep Kumar Soni v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Manish Datt; Advocate Nishank Pal Varma
Respondents: Dy. Govt. Advocate Santosh Yadav; Advocate Mayank Shrivastava