Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(2)(f), 417 and 506 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.227 – The case of respondent no.2/complainant was that during the pendency of the litigation arising out of a marital discord with her ex-husband, she came in contact with the appellant – Appellant, who was also separated from his wife, had assured the complainant that he will marry her, once she gets divorced – However, when the divorce of the complainant was finalized, appellant avoided her – FIR was registered – Appellant sought discharge by filing application u/s.227 CrPC – The said application was dismissed by the District and Session Judge – Challenge to the said order was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: It is the own case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that during the relevant time, the appellant had duly informed her that he was separated from his wife – The complainant who was well aware of the personal as well as the professional background of the appellant, who had been receiving financial help from the appellant for herself and her son, must have carefully weighed her decision before entering into a relationship with the appellant – It is from day one that she had knowledge and was conscious of the fact, that the appellant was in a subsisting marriage, though separated – It is upon having an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and the consequences of the acts, that the complainant made a reasoned choice to sustain a relationship with the appellant – In considered view of this Court, even if the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, it is improbable that the complainant had engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant, only on account of an assurance of marriage – There are also inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecutrix insofar as it is deposed by her in the statement u/s.164 CrPC – Considering overall factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was consensual, cannot be said to be without her consent or against her will – It would be in the interest of justice if the proceedings are terminated at this stage itself.[Paras 14, 15, 16, 19, 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.