FIR Came To Be Filed Only After Relationship Turned Sour: Gujarat HC Stays Coercive Action In Rape Case

A Bench of Justice Nirzar S Desai pointed out that the FIR did not explain why the complainant, who alleged physical harassment by the accused—an employee in the police department—had not reported her grievances earlier.

The Court said, “Having heard the learned Advocates on both the sides and having perused the material available on the record, i.e. the photographs of the petitioner with the victim complainant as well as the Whatsapp chats between them, so also considering the fact that there is no explanation given in the impugned FIR, as to why the complainant did not make any complaint to any higher police officer or to any of the officials at her bank about the mental and physical harassment meted out by the petitioner for the period of about three years, the matter would require consideration.”

The Court issued a notice to the State regarding the petitioner's request to quash the FIR, scheduling a further hearing for December 4. In the meantime, it allowed the investigation to continue but barred any coercive measures, including the filing of a chargesheet against the petitioner.

Advocate Vilas S. Patil appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate BV Pandya appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the alleged offenses, which began in December 2021 and continued until the FIR was registered on September 6, were based on claims of frequent stalking. The counsel argued that the complainant had alleged that the petitioner made false promises of marriage, which led her into an intimate relationship against her will.

The defense pointed out that the FIR accused the petitioner of introducing the complainant as his girlfriend within his social circle and stalking her outside her workplace, which the complainant described as coercive. The petitioner's counsel insisted that the relationship had been consensual for a considerable period, showcasing photographs from social gatherings as evidence.

The counsel argued that the FIR represented an abuse of legal process, maintaining that the petitioner was willing to cooperate with the investigation while seeking protection from arrest.

The Court observed that despite the complainant’s counsel’s strong opposition, there was no substantial evidence presented to dispute the notion that the relationship had been consensual. The Court highlighted, “Attention of this Court was also invited to various Whatsapp chats between the petitioner and the complainant and it was submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual in nature. It was submitted that the impugned FIR came to be filed, only after the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant turned sour.”

Cause Title: Ranjitsinh Nagjibhai Mori v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Vilas S. Patil, Nandita A Surollia

Respondents: Advocates BV Pandya, CB Patni