The Delhi High Court has observed that if a romantic relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground of lodging a rape case. “It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed. The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail...
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a romantic relationship does not work out, it cannot be a ground of lodging a rape case.
“It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC,” Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed.
The court made the observation while granting anticipatory bail to a government employee accusing of making physical relations with a woman on the false pretext of marrying her.
The FIR was registered by the woman alleging that in last year, she got engaged with the accused after which his family members started demanding dowry. She further alleged that after her father refused to give money to the accused after giving some amount, he started to avoid her and refused to marry her.
It was the accused’s case that the marriage was called-off due to the reason that the woman and her family did not disclose the fact that she was suffering from various medical ailments. It was his case that the FIR was lodged as an attempt to ruin his career.
Allowing the plea, the court said that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose that the accused did not have any intention to marry the woman and made false promise of marriage from the very beginning.
Justice Jain observed that the offence of rape under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code was not attracted in the case.
“The petitioner, being a government employee, would suffer irreparable loss and his career would be ruined if he is incarcerated in a false and frivolous case. The petitioner has roots in the society and would not flee from justice. The counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail,” the court said.
Furthermore, the court also said that the complainant did not disclose the alleged forcible sexual relation with her by the accused for more than four months.
“Although the prosecutrix has improved her version in the statement under section 164 of the Code, the issue whether the petitioner had physical relations with the prosecutrix with her consent or not is a matter of trial and cannot be decided without evidence. The petitioner is stated to be a Government employee. There is no risk that the petitioner would flee from the trial,” the court said.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Jha, Mr. Tribindh Kumar, Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocates.
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State. Mr. Lal Singh Thakur, Mr. Anurag Sharma, Mr. Rachit, Advocates for prosecutrix.
Title: SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1045
Title: SUSHANT KUMAR v. THE STATE