The Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur Bench rejected a first information report (FIR) against a rape suspect, concluding that the parties had a consensual relationship.
While Justice Farjand Ali found no evidence of rape, he did remark that the prosecutrix continued to have a sexual contact with the petitioner for two years.
The single-judge inquired in his order, “Why did the complainant allow the accused to have inter-course with her on several days, at different places, and even at different intervals?”
According to the Court, this is an unhappy but common situation of a boy and a girl having an affair, engaging in a sexual connection, and then breaking up.
This is a common scenario in which a boy and a girl have an affair, engage in a sexual relationship, and then break up.
The Rajasthan High Court is the highest court in the state.
In a nutshell, the petitioner was charged with rape with a false promise of marriage, and a FIR was filed against him.
- The petitioner asked for the FIR to be quashed because it was “exaggerated”;
- The prosecutrix claimed that the petitioner frightened her and enticed her into having sexual relations with him on the false pretence that he would marry her;
- The prosecutrix was judged to be an educated lady who was aware of the risks of intercourse before to marriage, according to the Court.
- The FIR was dismissed because the court believed it was a case of a boy and a girl having an affair, engaging in a sexual connection, and then breaking up.
elaboration
A mutual acquaintance introduced the prosecutrix and the accused, believing they were a good match for marriage. Her brothers, on the other hand, flatly denied the union.
The accused allegedly called her regularly in an attempt to persuade her to marry him, and she eventually agreed. She further alleged that the accused enticed her to form a physical relationship with him, and that she committed herself to him on the basis of a promise to marry her.
Despite her refusal to capitulate, she was forced to develop a physical relationship on this basis multiple times.
When she protested, the prosecutrix claimed she was threatened with the release of an obscene film. Finally, the accused refused to marry the prosecutrix.
The petitioner claimed that her FIR had inconsistencies and exaggerations.
He also claimed that she was an adult, literate woman who could tell good from bad, implying that they were in a mutually beneficial relationship.
The complainant and the public prosecutor contended that an appraisal of evidence was not required when a FIR was quashed. According to the report, there was a clear example of seduction based on a fraudulent promise to marry.
“There is not an iota of evidence to prove or suggest that right from the commencement, the objective of accused petitioner was to deceive the woman in order to compel her to engage in a sexual connection,” the Court stated.
The failure to keep a promise made in 2018 two years later could not be regarded as a sign that the commitment was fraudulent, according to Justice Ali. He thought the justification for permission granted under misunderstanding was poor and unsatisfactory.
The exaggeration in the FIR cast major concerns on the authenticity of the charges, according to the single-judge, and a review of the parties’ WhatsApp chats refuted the tale.
The prosecutrix’s silence for a long period before reporting the case raised major questions, according to the Court.
According to the Judge, this was an unhappy instance of a boy and a girl having an affair and engaging in a sexual connection that eventually ended in a breakup.
The Court held that when a woman is educated, she must be fully informed of the ramifications of having sexual relations with a man prior to the marriage being solemnised, and that a balanced view of both parties must be considered.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra was cited, in which it was said that there was a distinction between a false promise made with the expectation that it would be broken and the violation of a promise made in good faith but not followed through on.
As a result, it was determined that the parties had a consensual sexual connection, and that no offence as charged in the FIR had been committed, and the FIR was invalidated.
The petitioner was represented by Mohit Balwada, Asha Sharma, and Gayatri, while the respondents were represented by Anshuman Saxena and Public Prosecutor Ramesh Chaudhary.
Case: Radhakrishan Meena v. State of Rajasthan.
