'Domestic Violence Complaint And Rape Allegations Cannot Go Hand In Hand': Bombay HC

Holding that allegations of being a wife and simultaneously a victim of rape are “contradictory and cannot stand together,” the Bombay High Court on Wednesday quashed a 2014 rape and atrocities FIR against a 69-year-old man. The court said the complaint was lodged belatedly, lacked substance, and appeared to be filed with “mala fide intention”. 

A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Rajesh Patil was hearing the man’s plea seeking to quash FIR registered against him at Daund police station for rape, cheating and criminal intimidation under the IPC and under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The complainant, a woman from a Scheduled Tribe, alleged that she met the petitioner in 1994 when he was secretary of her son’s school. She claimed he promised marriage, bore her son’s school expenses, and later sexually exploited her. Two children were born out of the relationship, in 1999 and 2001. According to the FIR, he raped her repeatedly, threatened to remove her son from school and used casteist slurs. 

Legal Provisions Invoked

However, the petitioner argued that the complaint was motivated. He highlighted that she had earlier filed a domestic violence complaint in 2011 and a maintenance case under the section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2012. In both the pleas she claimed to be his wife. He also pointed out that he had filed a forgery case against her in 2013, after which she lodged the present FIR.

The bench found merit in his plea, stressing the inconsistency in the woman’s stand. “Once the Respondent No.2 files a complaint under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance and also a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act where her case is that she is the wife of the Petitioner, her subsequent complaint under Sections 376, 417 and 506 IPC will not hold much relevance or substance as both the allegations are contradictory to each other,” the court said.

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 14 Advocates For Bombay High Court Judgeship; HC Strength To Reach 80

Implications

The judges also noted the unexplained delay of 18 years in lodging the FIR. “From the relationship of Respondent No.2 with the Petitioner, two children were born, who are major as of today. In our view, the complaint is not genuine and is lodged with malafide intention,” the bench observed.

The petition was accordingly allowed and the FIR was quashed.