The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati recapitulate that failure of a consensual relationship can’t be a ground for lodging an FIR for offence of Rape U/S 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). This was seen in A vs. B
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the expressed case, the petitioner accused was booked U/S 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 384, 323 & 506 R.W Sect 109 of IPC and he had sought regular bail.
The complainant claimed that she was in a relationship with the accused. The complainant claimed that the petitioner promised to marry her and took her to his house with his parent’s consent and had sexual intercourse with her.
The complainant also claimed that when her periods were interrupted, the petitioner’s mother made her eat papaya and gave her some medicine after which her menstrual cycle resumed. After the incident, the complainant expressed that the petitioner and her parents were avoiding her and the petitioner’s friends also pressurized her over the phone.
Hence, the above crime was registered opposed the petitioner & other accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in explanation to what has been expressed in the grounds, resist that the Assertions in the FIR are vague & bald and prima facie does not constitute any offence much less the offences claimed in the FIR. It is also resist that the petitioner is deteriorating in jail since 15th June 2022 and the Crl.M.P.No.925 of 2022 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the Assertions against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further resist that when the parents of A1 didn’t agree for the marriage, the de facto complainant foisted this false case. In support of his disputation, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the determination of the Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan.
On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant PP submitted that the Assertions are serious in nature. However, the Final Opinion of the Gynecologist, based on the clinical history, examination & investigations, there is nothing evocative of any recent sexual intercourse. But, he presented that if bail is granted, the petitioner may not further cooperate with the investigation and, hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition.
The bench perceived, “Perusal of the record shows that there is assent betwixt the de facto complainant & petitioner and it is also prima facie evident that when the de facto complainant felt that the relationship betwixt her and the petitioner is not going to work out, she filed the present complaint.
As per the determination of the Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cited supra, when the complainant is willingly stayed and had relationship, if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence U/S 376(2)(n) of IPC.”
JUDGEMENT
The bench granting regular bail to the petitioner/accused remarked, “The said determination is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Taking the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on record into consideration, this Court is of the view that this complaint was lodged when the relationship betwixt the de facto complainant & the petitioner is not working out.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY YAKSHU JINDAL.
