Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 739
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
Lalchand Sirumal Bhojwani - Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Senior Inspector, Mulund West Police Station, Mumbai & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Application (APL) No. 1167 of 2018
Decided On : 31-07-2024
For the Applicant : Mr. Hitesh G. Ramchandani with Mr. G.J. Ramchandani.
For the Respondents: Mr. A.S. Shalgaonkar, APP., Mr. Ninand Muzumdar with Mr. Ameya Khot, i/b. Adv. Kenny V. Thakkar.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a consensual relationship cannot be construed as rape or cheating, especially when there is significant delay in reporting the alleged offenses.
Headnote:
Quashing - FIR - IPC Sections 376, 420, 506 - The court interpreted the provisions of IPC regarding rape and cheating, concluding that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermined the credibility of the allegations, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the Applicant, her employer, raped her multiple times over 31 years under the pretense of marriage, but the Applicant contended that the relationship was consensual and the FIR was filed only after their relationship soured.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship was consensual, with no evidence of force or coercion, and the delay in filing the FIR indicated a lack of credibility in the complainant's claims.
Issues: Whether the FIR alleging rape and cheating should be quashed based on the nature of the relationship and the delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not constitute an offense as the relationship was consensual, and the delay in reporting the incident undermined the complainant's credibility.
Result: The FIR was quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Neela Gokhale, J.
1. By the present Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), the Applicant seeks quashing of First Information Report (“FIR”) No. 303/2018 dated 8th August 2018 registered originally with the Powai Police Station lodged by Respondent No. 2 (“Complainant”) against him, for the offenses punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and subsequently transferred to Mulund Police Station, Mumbai for further investigation.
2. Vide Order dated 16th December 2022, notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 and the trial Court was directed to defer the criminal proceedings arising from the said FIR. Thereafter, the Application was admitted by an Order dated 28th March 2023.
3. Facts of the case:
3.1 It is the case of complainant that, after completing 12th Standard, she took up a job in the company of the Applicant. There were 10-12 other employees working in the company. In July 1987, on a holiday, the Applicant directed the complainant to come to office to prepare some bills for the purpose of audit. Since the Applicant was her employer, she came to office. While she was working, the Applicant came to her and hugged her and kissed her. She struggled to get away from him, but he forcibly established sexual relations with her on the wooden table. She tried to scream but he muffled her voice with a handkerchief. Then he threatened to defame her if she complained about this.
3.2 The complainant states that, she was very scared and hence she did not complain to anybody. Thereafter, during the period between July 1987 and 2017 the Applicant raped her by taking her to various hotels in Kalyan, Bhiwandi and other places. He promised to marry with her and told her that, she was his second wife and he would look after her. In August 1993, he put a gold Mangalsutra in her neck and declared her to be his second wife. He also assured her that, he would give her the status of a wife.
3.3 It is the contention of the complainant that the Applicant did not permit her to be married to anybody else but threatened to defame her if she did so. In 1996, he suffered a heart attack. During that period, she looked after the company and managed the affairs. In September 2017, her mother suffered from cancer and she had to take leave of absence from her job. When she resumed service, she found the office closed and there was lock on the Company gate. She tried to contact the Applicant, but he was unreachable.
3.4 When her parents demanded to know as to why she had not gone to work, she revealed the entire relationship. Her father took her to the Applicant’s house, where he admitted to the relationship but requested them not to inform his wife and family members regarding the same. He again promised to marry her after few days. It is the complainant’s case that despite his assurances, he failed to marry her. When she demanded documents relating to Bank, Income Tax, an Agreement relating to a Medical Shop and her gold Mangalsutra, the Applicant refused to give the same to her. Thereafter, all her attempts to reach him were in vain and the Applicant refused to meet her.
3.5 The complainant, on 29th December 2017 went to the Applicant’s house and revealed to his wife the relationship between them. However, the Applicant’s wife did not take any action. Thus, the complainant states that, the Applicant has cheated her by establishing a sexual relationship with her on the assurance of marriage. He has thereby committed the alleged offenses and thus she filed the present FIR.
4. Mr. Hitesh Ramchandani, learned counsel, appears for the Applicant. Mr Ninand Muzumdar, learned counsel appears for the complainant and Mr A.S Shalgaonkar, learned APP, represents the State.
4.1 We have heard counsels for all the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
5. Mr. Ramchandani contends that, this is a clear case of a consensual relationship between the parties and there is no element of
