E-Paper
'Vehicle for vengeance': SC quashes FIR of ‘rape on pretext of marriage’ filed after affair with colleague
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
Calling the case an “afterthought” and “a vehicle for vengeance”, the Supreme Court has quashed the FIR and chargesheet against a man accused of “rape on the pretext of marriage”.
The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh recently set aside a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash the proceedings, as per a report by news agency ANI.
The SC noted that at the time of the alleged crime, the woman and the man were colleagues — she was a computer operator, he was a revenue inspector in the local municipal corporation.
She filed the case only after she was issued a showcause notice when the man approached superior officers with a complaint against her. He had said in his representations that she was harassing him with threats of suicide and abuse.
Married with a son, she entered into a physical relationship with the accused after assurances of marriage, as per the case details cited by ANI.
What was the case?
In the FIR, she reportedly alleged that on March 15, 2023, the man had forcible sexual relations by again promising marriage. Such abuse, she alleged, continued till April. When she later asked about marriage, he allegedly refused.
However, the court noted, before the FIR, the man had filed multiple complaints against her for harassment.
He had given representations to the municipal and police authorities. She was then issued a show-cause notice on July 6, 2023, by the MC, warning that she could be relieved of employment if her conduct did not improve.
She filed the FIR only after this, meaning four months after the alleged incident.
“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 SC bench noted, as per the agency report.
“When she enquired as to when [marriage] would take place… the appellant (man) 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 further said.
"Even if that was not done so, the fact that the FIR was only lodged after the issuance of show-cause notice… leaves open a gaping possibility that the same was lodged as an afterthought and was a vehicle for vengeance for the impending consequences (of the show-cause notice)," the top court further stated, quashing the FIR and chargesheet.
