No Explanation Why Complainant Did Not Approach Authorities For 3 Years: Gujarat HC Orders No Coercive Action Against Sexual Assault Accused
While staying coercive action against an accused in an alleged rape case, the Gujarat High Court in its interim order noted that no explanation was given in the FIR on why, for three years, the complainant had not approached a higher police authority regarding the alleged physical harassment meted out to her by the accused, who was working in the police department.
Observing that the matter requires consideration, a single judge bench of Justice Nirzar S Desai in its September 25 order said, "Having heard the learned Advocates on both the sides and having perused the material available on the record, i.e. the photographs of the petitioner with the victim complainant as well as the Whatsapp chats between them, so also considering the fact that there is no explanation given in the impugned FIR, as to why the complainant did not make any complaint to any higher police officer or to any of the officials at her bank about the mental and physical harassment meted out by the petitioner for the period of about three years, the matter would require consideration"
During the hearing, the high court orally said to the counsel for the complainant, "Why at one point of time you did not bring it to the notice of this kind of incidents to any of the police authorities? Why did you tolerate all this for three years? Merely because a person is in police department...why an educated lady would tolerate all this for 3 years? What is the explanation for that?...If she was forced, if she has gathered the courage in 2024, why she did not inform the police? I am not saying about registration of the offence. She could have approached the police that someone from your department… show me one letter by her".
Issuing notice to the State in the petitioner's plea for quashing of the FIR, the court listed the matter on December 4. It further said that in the meantime while the investigation may proceed, however, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner which includes "filing of chargesheet."
Proceedings in court
The counsel for the petitioner drew the court's attention to the FIR as per which the offence commenced in December 2021 and continued till the date of registration of the FIR, i.e. up to September 6. He said that FIR is lodged on the ground that the complainant–working as an Assistant Branch Manager in a reputed bank–was frequently stalked by the petitioner.
He argued that the complainant had claimed that the petitioner also made false promises to marry her and had thereby made the complainant "enter into an intimate relationship with him, forcefully".
The petitioner said that it had been alleged in the FIR that during the span of three years, i.e. during which the alleged offence continued, the petitioner had been introducing the complainant as his girlfriend in his inner circle. It was submitted that it is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner used to stand outside the bank, where the woman was working, and was constantly stalking her, which ultimately led the complainant to enter into a forcible relationship with the petitioner.
"Im working in the police department. We were having consensual…we were into a relationship for long period of time 2-3 years. Now 376 is filed I loose my job if I'm arrested," the petitioner's counsel said during the hearing.
The petitioner's counsel said that it had not been explained why the complainant remained silent about the alleged harassment at the hands of the petitioner and instead, she entered into a relationship with him.
He argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual and drew the court's attention to several photographs attached with the plea, where the parties can be seen together, along with other persons, who appear to have gathered at a hotel for the celebration of a birthday.
The petitioner's counsel argued that FIR is a clear abuse of the process of law, and the petitioner has no objection to the continuation of the investigation while he is protected from coercive action.
Court's observation
The court noted that while the complainant's counsel "strongly opposed" the plea and sought to file a detailed reply, however, she could not point out anything from the material on the record to indicate that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was not consensual.
"Attention of this Court was also invited to various Whatsapp chats between the petitioner and the complainant and it was submitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual in nature. It was submitted that the impugned FIR came to be filed, only after the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant turned sour," the order notes.
The court further said that even the counsel appearing for the State could not point out anything, indicating whether, at any point in time, the complainant had complained about the alleged harassment at the hands of the petitioner either to any higher police authority or even to her officials at the bank.
Case title: Ranjitsinh Nagjibhai Mori v/s State of Gujarat & Anr.