SC raps woman accusing man of rape on promise of marriage: ‘Vehicle for…'
The case involves a woman employee of a Municipal Corporation, who worked as a Computer Operator. She made allegations against her colleague, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, with whom she had been friendly for five years.
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet against a man who was accused of rape on the pretext of marriage. The court held that the FIR was an "afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences."
According to news agency ANI, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash the proceedings.
What's the case?
The case involves a woman employee of a Municipal Corporation, who worked as a Computer Operator.
She made allegations against her colleague, an Assistant Revenue Inspector, with whom she had been friendly for five years, ANI reported.
Despite being married and having a son, she entered into a physical relationship with the accused after assurances of marriage.
She alleged that on March 15, 2023, the accused forced sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage, which continued till April 2023.
When she later asked about marriage, he allegedly refused and asked her to marry someone else.
Thereafter, she lodged an FIR against her colleague for rape.
However, prior to the FIR, the accused man had filed multiple complaints against the complainant (woman), alleging harassment, including threats of suicide and abuse.
The accused had also lodged representations before municipal and police authorities, following which the complainant was issued a show-cause notice on July 6, 2023.
She was also warned that she could be relieved of employment if her conduct did not improve.
The woman filed the FIR four months after the alleged incident, only after administrative steps had been initiated.
What did the SC say?
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that the FIR was only lodged after the issuance of a show-cause notice, leaving open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an "afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences."
"If the description of the offence is taken at face value, right at the first instance, the complainant was not willing and was persuaded to engage in relations on the assurance of eventual marriage between the parties," the Supreme Court stated while quashing the FIR and chargesheet.
It added, “When she enquired as to when the same would take place, a few days later, allegedly, the appellant refused and asked her to marry someone else.”
"That would be the first occasion when, having realised that she had been taken advantage of the complainant should have taken the requisite action," the court said.
"Even if that was not done so, the fact that the subject FIR was only lodged after the issuance of show-cause notice, which obviously has large real-world implications insofar as the complainant is concerned, leaves open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences described above," it added.