Rape By False Promise To Marry: Allahabad HC Dismisses Police Officer's Plea Challenging Cognizance Order
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the plea of a police officer accused of drugging a victim with contaminated drinks and subsequently engaging in a physical relationship with her, all while allegedly promising to marry.
The Court dismissed the application seeking to quash the charge sheet and the cognizance order.
The Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta observed, “it is clear that in the first instance the applicant herein has raped the opposite party no.2 by making her to consume a contaminated cold-drinks, thereby, making her unconscious. Therefore, it was prima facie an act of force without consent. Thereafter, looking at the authority of the applicant, she could not resist such relationship. Subsequent thereto, the applicant had established the physical relationship with the opposite party no.2 under the garb of promise to marry her by divorcing his previous wife”.
Advocate Gulab Chandra appeared for the Applicant and Additional Government Advocate Vibhav Anand appeared for the State.
An application was filed seeking to quash the charge sheet and the cognizance order in a case involving allegations made by Shivani Dube against the applicant, Anshul Kumar, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant, a police officer, was previously involved in a case against Jishan Hashim, during which Dube came into contact with him. Dube later filed an FIR against the applicant, alleging misconduct and rape. The applicant contended that Dube's statements were false and retaliatory, stemming from a dispute over another case. Despite Dube retracting her statements in a Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) statement, a charge sheet was filed and cognizance taken.
After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the case record, the Court referred to the case of Vinod Kumar v State of Kerala [(2014) 5 SCC 678], and noted that consensual relations where the victim was aware of the nullity of marriage did not constitute rape. However, the Court reiterated that false promises of marriage leading to sexual relations amounted to rape.
The Court noted that a prima facie case against the applicant based on the statement under Section 164 CrPC, indicated forced acts without consent and exploitation of the victim's vulnerability. Despite explanations for past conduct, the Court declined to interfere, citing the need for evidence during the trial.
Cause Title: Anshul Kumar v State Of UP and Another (2024:AHC:22274)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates Gulab Chandra and Rupesh Kumar Singh
Respondent: Additional Government Advocate Vibhav Anand and Advocate Satish Kumar Tyagi
