Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Bharati Dangre, J.
Vishwas Bajirao Patil - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 4912 of 2019
Decided On : 04-05-2023
QUASHING - DISCHARGE APPLICATION - Sec. 375, 354, 354A, 504, 506 IPC; Sec. 482 CrPC - The court analyzed the nature of the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner, concluding that it was consensual over a decade. The court emphasized that consent must be unequivocal and voluntary, and found no evidence of coercion or lack of consent. The court also noted the complainant's subsequent affidavit expressing her desire not to proceed with the case, leading to the decision to quash the charges against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting his discharge application in a case involving serious charges under the IPC, including rape and assault. The complainant alleged a decade-long relationship that turned sour, claiming the petitioner had exploited her and committed sexual offenses against her will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship was consensual, with no evidence of coercion or lack of consent. The complainant's own statements indicated a mutual relationship, and her later affidavit expressed a desire to withdraw the complaint, leading the court to conclude that the charges were not substantiated.
Issues: Whether the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner was consensual and whether the charges of rape and other offenses were justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that consent must be unequivocal and voluntary, and that the nature of the relationship over a decade indicated mutual consent. The absence of evidence supporting coercion or a false promise of marriage led to the conclusion that no offense was made out under the relevant sections of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order rejecting the discharge application and discharged the petitioner from the charges, as the material in the charge-sheet did not justify proceeding with the trial.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner invoking Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 14/9/2018 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, thereby rejecting the discharge application filed by him in Special Case No.198/2018, where he faces a charge of Sec. 376, 354, 354A, 323, 324, 504, 506 of the IPC. The impugned order has refused the discharge on the ground that there is sufficient material which would justify the prosecution against the petitioner by subjecting him to trial.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel Mr.Mundargi i/b Satyam Nimbalkar for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.S.R. Agarkar, for the State. The background facts in which the relief is sought, would reveal that the complainant, a lady aged 60 years, filed a private complaint before the JMFC, Pune, in the year 2015 and she sought invocation of offences punishable u/s.354, 509, 420, 504, 506 IPC. Pursuant to an order passed u/s.156(3) by the JMFC, the police recorded an additional statement of the complainant and thereafter, Sec. 376 and 354A was invoked in a C.R. registered with Kothrud Police Station vide C.R. No.290/2016 and on completion of investigation, in the subject C.R, charge-sheet came to be filed before the Magistrate on 6/2/2018. The statement of the complainant recorded on 20/6/2016 contain a narration that she was residing in Pune and she was married in the year 1986, but obtained divorce in the year 1993. For her survival, she joined the post of Head Master in a School, and since the petitioner was working as a Chairman of the said School, she was introduced to him. As per the complainant, he was aware about she being a divorcee and he offered his sympathies to her and on one pretext or the other, made every attempt to meet her personally. At times, without any justiceable reason, he used to call her to his house and indulge in personal talks. Taking advantage of the fact that she is a divorcee, he made every attempt to come closer to her and expressed his dissatisfaction with his own married life and also expressed his desire to solemnize the marriage with her, so that he can lead a happy and peaceful life. Disapproving the said behaviour, she resigned from the job in the year 1994 and started residing with her parents. In the year 1995, she married another person but within short span of four years, her husband succumbed to an accidental death. Thereafter, she was in search of a new job and hence was in need of an experience certificate from her erstwhile school and when she contacted the petitioner, he asked her to collect the certificate. For this reason, she again came in contact with the petitioner who continued with his behaviour of imposing himself upon her and requesting for solemnization of the marriage. She refused to indulge him and expressed that she is ready to continue the friendly relationship, but was not in favour of marriage.
3. As per the complaint, on 23/1/2005, being her birth date, the petitioner visited her and presented a gold ring and brought a cake for celebrating the occasion. He induced her by expressing his liking for her and his desire to solemnize the marriage. It is for the first time on this day, physical relationship was established between them and thereafter, as per the version of the prosecutrix, he brought various gift articles like jewellery, sarees etc, and even assured her that a flat belonging to him would be transferred in her name. Thereafter, they continued to meet in different cities in different locations, hotels, resorts, the details of which are narrated in the complaint. He accompanied her on distinct destinations by projecting her as his wife for the purpose of booking the air tickets, booking of lodges, as etc, where he gave her name as Mrs. Patil. His credit card was also given to her for withdrawal of money, as and when needed by her and he even arranged for a car for her conveyance. As per her own version, he had also borne
AI
Consent in sexual relationships must be unequivocal and voluntary; a long-term mutual relationship does not constitute grounds for charges of sexual offenses if there is no evidence of coercion or la....
Consent in consensual relationships cannot be construed as vitiated without evidence of intent to deceive or coerce.
A consensual relationship, even with the intent of marriage, does not constitute sexual assault under Section 376 IPC if there is no coercion or false representation.
A consensual relationship, even under promise of marriage, may not constitute rape if consent is given freely without coercion.
A settled dispute between parties can warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of judicial process.
Consent vitiated by deception negates the validity of consent in sexual offences, allowing for charges of rape to proceed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
