"For Past 31 Years, She Willingly Participated In Sexual Relationship": Bombay HC Quashes 'Rape Case' Against 73 Yr Old Man
The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against a 73-year-old man who was accused of raping on the false promise of marriage.
The Court held thus while observing that the parties were indulging in a sexual relationship for as many as 31 years and the complainant has never breathed a word about her alleged objection to the relationship.
The Court was hearing the Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR registered against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale observed, “In the past 31 years, she has willingly and knowingly participated in the relationship with the Applicant.”
Advocate Hitesh G. Ramchandani appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Ninand Muzumdar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the complainant that she worked for the Applicant's company where on one holiday he summoned her to the office and forcibly raped her. She submitted that the Applicant repeatedly raped her for 30 years on the promise of marriage and told her that she was his second wife. He threatened to defame her if she married anyone else. In 2017 she found that the office was closed and couldn't reach the Applicant. When she disclosed the relationship to her parents, they confronted the Applicant, who admitted to the relationship. Despite his promises, he did not marry her or return her belongings. The complainant filed an FIR, alleging that the Applicant deceived her by promising marriage to establish a sexual relationship.
The Court criticised the counsel for the respondent who canvassed his arguments by placing reliance on a decision has already been overturned by the Apex Court. The Court observed, “We decry this practice of counsel placing reliance on decisions which have been overturned by the Apex Court, without verifying precedents that holds the field.”
The Court said that despite the knowledge that the complainant was aware that Applicant was married she continued to believe his assurance regarding marriage. The Court observed, “She is adult enough to know that the law forbids a second marriage and there is no allegation in the complaint that, the Applicant promised to divorce his first wife and then marry her. Even otherwise, this would purely be wishful thinking on the part of the complainant that the Applicant will marry her after divorcing his existing wife.”
The Court remarked that she did not make use of the opportunities that were available to her to break away and report the case itself supports the defence of the Applicant that the relationship was completely consensual.
The Court said that it is a classic case of a relationship between the parties turning sour and thereafter the complainant lodging a police complaint.
Accordingly, the Court said that the physical relationship between the complainant and the Applicant cannot be said to be against her will and without her consent and no case of rape or cheating is made out.
Finally, the Court quashed the FIR and allowed the Application.
Cause Title: Lalchand Sirumal Bhojwani v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:30034-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Hitesh G. Ramchandani and Adv. G. J. Ramchandani
Respondent: APP A. S. Shalgaonkar, Adv. Ninand Muzumdar, Adv. Ameya Khot and Adv. Kenny V. Thakkar
