“It is a case of affair and sexual relationship ending in breakup:” Rajasthan High Court quashes rape case

The Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed a first information report (FIR) against a rape-accused, finding that there was a consensual relationship between the parties [Radhakrishan Meena v. State of Rajasthan]..Justice Farjand Ali while holding that no offence of rape was made out, took note of the fact that the prosecutrix continued to engage in a sexual relationship with the petitioner for a long period of two years.“Why did the complainant allow the accused to have inter-course with her on different dates, at different places and even at different intervals?” the single-judge asked in his order.This is an unfortunate but routine case of a boy and a girl having an affair, indulging in sexual relationship and ultimately ending in breakup, the Court said..This is a routine case of a boy and a girl having an affair, indulging in sexual relationship and ultimately ending in breakup.Rajasthan High Court.- An FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offence of rape with a false promise of marriage;- The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR alleging it was “exaggerated”;- The prosecutrix stated that she was threatened and seduced into intercourse by the petitioner on the false pretext that he will marry her;- The Court found that the prosecutrix was an educated woman who knew the consequences of intercourse before marriage;- The FIR was quashed as the Court believed this was a case of a boy and a girl having an affair, indulging into a sexual relationship and ultimately ending into a breakup..The prosecutrix and accused were introduced by a mutual acquaintance who believed they were suitable to marry each other. However, her brothers bluntly refused the union.The accused allegedly called her frequently to coax her into marriage, and she ultimately consented. Further, she claimed that she was induced by the accused to develop a physical relationship, and she surrendered herself before him on account of promise to marry her.She was made to establish a physical relationship several times on account of this premise even though she was not willing to surrender.The prosecutrix claimed that she was also threatened with the release of an obscene video when she protested. The accused finally refused to marry the prosecutrix..The petitioner argued that there were discrepancies and exaggerations in her FIR.Further, he claimed that she was a grown up, literate lady who could differentiate good from bad, so it should be presumed that there was a consensual relationship..The complainant and the public prosecutor argued that at the time of quashing an FIR, appreciation of evidence was not required. It was stated that this was a clear case of seduction on account of a false promise to marry..The Court firmly decided in favour of the accused observing that, “there is not an iota of evidence to show or suggest that right from the inception, the intent of accused petitioner was to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relationship.”.Justice Ali said that the failure to keep a promise made in 2018 two years later, could not be construed to mean that the promise itself was false. He opined that the excuse taken regarding consent given under misconception appeared to be flimsy and unconvincing..The single-judge noted that the embellishment in the FIR cast serious doubts on the genuineness of the allegations, and a perusal of the parties’ WhatsApp messages negated the story.The Court found that the prosecutrix keeping mum for a long time before reporting the matter cast serious doubts..It was the Judge’s opinion that this was unfortunate case of a boy and a girl having an affair, indulging in a sexual relationship that ultimately ended in a breakup.The Court took a view that when a woman is educated, she must be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnising of the marriage, and a balanced view must be taken considering both the parties..Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, where it was observed that there was a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken, and the breach of a promise that is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled..Therefore, it was held that there was a consensual sexual relationship between the parties and thus, no offence as alleged in the FIR was made out and the FIR was quashed..Advocates Mohit Balwada, Asha Sharma and Gayatri appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by advocate Anshuman Saxena and Public Prosecutor Ramesh Chaudhary..[Read Judgment]