The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati reiterated that failure of a consensual relationship cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for offence of Rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC").
Facts of the case
In the instant case, the petitioner accused was booked u/s 376(2)(n), 420, 417, 384, 323 and 506 r.w Section 109 of IPC and he had sought regular bail.
The complainant alleged that she was in a relationship with the accused. The complainant alleged 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 alleged 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 stated that the petitioner and her parents started avoiding her and the petitioner’s friends also threatened her over the phone.
Hence, the above crime was registered against the petitioner and other accused.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds, contended that the allegations in the FIR are vague and bald and prima facie does not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged in the FIR. It is also contended that the petitioner is languishing in jail since 15.06.2022 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 allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further contended that when the parents of A1 did not agree for the marriage, the de facto complainant foisted this false case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan .
On the other hand, the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are serious in nature. However, the Final Opinion of the Gynecologist, Siddhartha Medical College, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, based on the clinical history, examination and investigations, there is nothing suggestive of any recent sexual intercourse. But, he submitted that if bail is granted, the petitioner may not co-operate with the investigation and, hence, prayed for dismissal of the Petition.
Courts Observation and order
The bench at the very outset observed, "Perusal of the record shows that there is consent between the de facto complainant and the petitioner and it is also prima facie evident that when the de facto complainant felt that the relationship between her and the petitioner is not going to work out, she filed the present complaint.
As per the decision 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 under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC."
The bench granting regular bail to the petitioner/accused remarked, "The said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present 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 between the de facto complainant and the petitioner is not working out.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://miro.medium.com/max/700/1*smR6Qt26fhiJQB5LRfkWPw.jpeg
