New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, while quashing a rape case against a man on rape charges observing that s the parties had consensually agreed to enter into physical relationship and the same was not based on false promise of marriage, said that some people use the rape case as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart.
“It is true that the provision under which the FIR (First information Report) has been lodged is one of the most heinous crimes against women, however, it is also an established fact that some people use it as a weapon to unnecessarily harass the male counterpart,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said while ordering quashing of the FIR.
Petitioner placed screenshots of WhatsApp chats and transcript of audio recordings to prove his innocence
The counsel representing the man submitted that the complainant woman and the petitioner were in a relationship and had established physical relations with due consent and that there are no allegations regarding the petitioner being indulged in physical relations with the complainant on false pretext of marriage. The counsel further said that the marriage between the parties did not take place due to non-interest shown by the complainant. The petitioner also placed the screenshots of the WhatsApp chats and transcript of the audio recordings to prove his innocence.
State vehemently opposed petition for quashing of case
The counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the petition for quashing of the case, submitting that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and the complaint clearly establishes that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the prosecutrix. The issues raised by the petitioner are a matter of trial and therefore, the merit of the case may not be decided at this stage and the instant petition be dismissed, the State submitted.
Parties had performed roka ceremony in year 2019, High Court noted
The High Court noted that even though the complainant has levelled allegations against the petitioner and the said allegations stem from his alleged misconduct in the year 2015, the parties had performed roka ceremony in the year 2019. It further noted that with respect to the allegation regarding the sexual assault on March 19, 2020, the petitioner has pleaded alibi and it is proven from the record of his duties in Haryana and the subsequent status report filed by the respondent State.
Parties had taken steps to get married, however, families did not agree due to caste factor, High Court noted
The High Court further noted that the complainant was in constant touch with the petitioner and both the parties used to share details about their life on a daily basis and other personal details and the parties had taken steps to get married, however, the families did not agree due to the caste factor. Despite the said reservations from the petitioner’s family, the petitioner was ready to get married to the prosecutrix and she herself did not show any interest later on and entered into a relationship with another person, it added.
Courts duty bound to look into possibility of presence of ulterior motive on part of complainant: High Court
“The WhatsApp chats between the parties also shows that the prosecutrix had sent several messages to the petitioner and conveyed information regarding her decision to get married to another person, therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but an afterthought,” the High Court said and added that courts are duty bound to look into the possibility of presence of ulterior motive on part of the complainant to seek vengeance from the petitioner.
Instant case is a classic example of how an innocent person faced undue hardships due to misuse of penal provision: High Court
The recordings, WhatsApp chats, statement of the complainant clearly establishes that the ingredients of section 376 of the IPC are not met as the parties had consensually agreed to enter into physical relationship and the same was also not based on false promise of marriage, the High Court said.
“The instant case is a classic example of how an innocent person had faced undue hardships due to misuse of the penal provision and therefore, this Court is of the firm view that nothing would come out of the case if the matter is subjected to trial,” the High Court said while quashing the rape case against the man.
