The Delhi High Court in its order dated December 03, 2024 quashed a rape case against a man, after he consented and married the complainant woman.
FIR was registered by the live-in partner of the accused since he had backed out from marriage.
Case:
Mr A (boyfriend) & Ms B (girlfriend) were in a consensual live-in relationship for about 4-5 years.
According to Ms B, while they were in a live-in relationship, Mr A established forceful physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. It is further alleged that when Ms B got pregnant, Mr A gave abortion pills to her in order to terminate her pregnancy. The above incidents culminated into the registration of the FIR on May 29, 2024.
Once the FIR was filed, Mr A agreed to marry Ms B and subsequently, the duo got married on May 31, 2024.
Accordingly, the couple now approached Delhi High Court to quash the rape proceedings, against the male live-in partner, who was now the legally wedded husband of complainant woman.
Advocates Shailendra P. Singh, Shivek Kapoor, Vansh Bajaj, Nishant Sharma and Udit Sharma who represented the accused submitted before court:
The present FIR was registered owing to some misunderstandings between the petitioner and Respondent No.2. The parties have already settled their misunderstandings. The petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are happily married and are living together as husband and wife in harmony.
Since the parties are already happily married, the continuation of criminal proceedings would only cause undue harassment and heartburn to the parties.
Delhi High Court
The Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan cited a number of past judgments related to such matters and observed:
It is not in doubt that the offences under Sections 376(2)(n)/313 of the IPC are heinous in nature and involve mental depravity. Offences of such nature cannot be quashed merely because the victim has settled the dispute. Such offences, in true sense, cannot be said to be offences in personam as the same are crimes against the society.
Adding further, the High Court remarked:
However, in view of the facts that the complainant has herself stated that she was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner and the complaint was given when the petitioner refused to marry, and that the parties have already solemnized their marriage on 31.05.2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.
The pendency of the proceedings would only cause harassment to the parties and would be an abuse of the process of law. The proceedings would cause unnecessary heartburn and prejudice to the future life of the parties.
According the FIR was quashed.
MUST WATCH:
Section 69 BNS | Will Boyfriend Be Arrested For Break Up? | Voice For Men India
Interview | Abhijit Iyer-Mitra Discusses Menace Of False Rape Cases In India
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:
https://twitter.com/voiceformenind/status/1885251159276896745
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
