SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Del) 837

High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.

Manoj Bajpai – Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) No. 771 of 2014 & Crl.M.A. No. 5999 of 2014
Decided On : 21-05-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with V.N. Jha Deepti Dwivedi, Advocates
For the Respondent: Rajesh Mahajan, ASC

The main legal point established in the judgment is that consensual physical relationship between parties, even with the assertion of inducement into the relationship on the promise of marriage, may not constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC.

Headnote:

FIR Quashing - Live-in Relationship - 376 IPC - [FIR No.19/2013 u/s 376 IPC] - The court quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings as the allegations did not constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC. The complainant and the accused were in a consensual live-in relationship, and the complainant's assertion of inducement into the relationship on the promise of marriage was found to be false and unacceptable. The court also considered the settlement between the parties and the absence of evidence to support the complainant's allegations.

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that the accused induced her into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage. However, the accused and the complainant were in a consensual live-in relationship, and the complainant's assertion of inducement into the relationship on the promise of marriage was found to be false and unacceptable. The court also considered the settlement between the parties and the absence of evidence to support the complainant's allegations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations did not constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC as the complainant and the accused were in a consensual live-in relationship, and the complainant's assertion of inducement into the relationship on the promise of marriage was found to be false and unacceptable. The court also considered the settlement between the parties and the absence of evidence to support the complainant's allegations.

Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations made by the complainant constituted the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC, and whether the complainant's assertion of inducement into the relationship on the promise of marriage was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations did not constitute the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC as the complainant and the accused were in a consensual live-in relationship, and the complainant's assertion of inducement into the relationship on the promise of marriage was found to be false and unacceptable. The court also considered the settlement between the parties and the absence of evidence to support the complainant's allegations.

Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR No.19/2013 u/s 376 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.19/2013 u/s 376 IPC dated 17th January, 2013 registered with PS Ashok Nagar, Delhi and the consequential proceedings emanating there from.

2. Following facts emerged from the charge sheet:-

On 17th January, 2013, the complainant Seema Mohal came to police station and got recorded her statement which is as under:-

“Statement of Seema Mohal d/o late Shri J.L. Mohal, r/o H.No.97A, Pocket A-3, Mayur Vihar – IIII, Delhi stated that I am residing at the above said address alone. This house belongs to Dr. Manoj Vajpayee, S/o Om Shankar Vajpayee, R/o A-17, Sector-17, Noida U.P. I know Dr. Manoj Vajpayee in relation to treatment of my mother. I am married and I have two children but my husband and children are living at Chandigarh but I am living separate from my husband and children for the last 16-17 years. Therefore, I came close to Dr. Manoj Vajpayee, Dr. Manoj took advantage of it and he kept me in this house as his wife. Dr. Manoj put vermillion on my head and garlanded Mangal Sutra on my neck and brought me in his house here. I am residing there for the last 18 months. Dr. Manoj kept me as his wife. That during this period we had physical relationship. But for the last some months, Dr. Manoj has stopped giving household expenses. That during this period Dr. Manoj harassed me physically and mentally and used me. You have written my statement which I read and the same is correct. Legal action be taken.”

3. On the aforesaid statement case under Section 376 IPC was registered by SI Kulbeer and was assigned to ASI Saubhagyawati for investigation. On 18th January, SI Kulbeer arrested the petitioner and took him to LBS Hospital where his potency test was conducted. His medical examination was conducted vide MLC No. 732/13. The doctor gave sealed blood sample and sample seal of LBS hospital to SI Kulbeer Singh which was seized. ASI Saubhagyawati got conducted the medical examination of victim Seema Mohal vide MLC No. 013/13. During the medical examination of the victim, ASI Saubhagyawati took into police possession (i) sexual assault evidence collection kit (ii) clothes of the victim (iii) sample seal of LBS Hospital KP given by the doctor, which were sealed and intact. Thereafter, on 22nd January, 2013, an application for recording statement of victim Seema Mohal was moved for recording her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. and her statement was recorded by Sh. D.K. Garg, Metroplitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts. The contents of the same are as follows:-

“On 14.11.1990 my marriage was solemnized with Mukesh Jassal at Chandigarh. On 05.10.1991 my son Yuvraj was born and my daughter Joya was born on 07.03.1996. Some differences arose between my in-laws and my family members. And about the year 1997-98, I had shifted to my parental home at Noida. About the year 2003-04 my children had shifted to their father Mukesh Jassal. My father had expired. My mother was suffering from diabetes. We took the mother and consulted Dr. Manoj Bajpai. By this way Dr. Manoj Bajpai started visiting to our house. During this period Dr. Manoj Bajpai helped us a lot. Thereafter, he kept me as receptionist and trained me nursing. After the death of my mother, I had sold one property. On 08.04.2011, I had gone to Chandigarh along with my son Yuvraj. When I reached there, phone calls of Dr. Manoj Bajpai and his colleague started coming. Then he told me on phone that he wanted to marry me. In spite of my denial, he continued to tell that he wanted to marry me. He also told me on phone that if I shall not come then he would show the objectionable photo to my son which he obtained by applying narcotics on me. Dr. Manoj had indulged into physical relation many times with me by applying narcotics. Again in June, 2011 he kept vermilion on my head and put mangalsutra and then kept me at 97A, Pocket A-3, Mayur Vihar. There I re



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top