Bombay High Court: The petitioners filed the instant petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending against them before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mangaon, Raigad (“Trial Court”), for the offences punishable under Sections , , , , , , , read with of the (“IPC”). The Division Bench of A.S. Gadkari and Dr. Neela Gokhale*, JJ., found that petitioner 1 was obtaining sexual relations from the complainant by first promising her that he would marry her, and then by threatening her of multiple outcomes, including the circulation of an offensive footage of them involved in sexual activities. The Court found that the complainant continued to maintain physical relations with her, under the fear of being defamed. Therefore, the Court held that such consent was no consent in the eye of the law and refused to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Background
The complainant had been acquainted with petitioner 1 for 7-8 years, and petitioners 2 and 3 were petitioner 1’s friends. Petitioner 1 runs a Hair and Spa Saloon. He and the complainant had been dating since December 2022. The case of the complainant was that petitioner 1 established physical relations with her on the pretext that he loved her and would marry her. The complainant had missed her menstrual periods, and when she informed petitioner 1 about the same, he beat and kicked her, and forced her to consume abortion medication. Later, he took her to a Diagnostic Centre for a sonograph, that transpired her that she was not pregnant. In March 2023, petitioner 1 again assaulted the complainant, and raped her, which he recorded on the CCTV camera installed at his Saloon, and threatened the complainant that he would circulate the clip, if she were to complain to anyone. Thereafter, petitioner 1 continued to physically abuse the complainant. On one occasion, the complainant also stated that all the petitioners abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her and her family if she complained to the police.
The complainant also stated that due to the threats, she also attempted to commit suicide by swallowing sleeping pills. However, she lost her nerve and was admitted to intensive care unit (“ICU”) at a hospital. It was when the complainant lodged an FIR against the petitioners.
Court’s analysis and decision
The Court perused Sections read with of and noted that when a woman does not “consent” to sexual acts described under Section of , the offence of rape occurs. The Court further noted that Section 90 does not define the term “consent”, but the law does not see “consent derived from a fear of injury and misconception of fact” as consent.
The Court noted the complainant’s statement in the FIR, that petitioner 1 forcibly established sexual relations with her without her consent. The Court also noted that due to the threat of sharing the offensive clip, the complainant was compelled to submit to the sexual demands of petitioner 1. The Court observed that at the first instance, it appears as if the complainant and petitioner 1 may have been in a relationship, however, upon careful examination, it transpires that the complaint was compelled to continue the relationship under fear of being defamed.
The Court noted that petitioner 1 kept (grudgingly) deriving sexual favours from the complainant, on the premise that he was in love with her and would marry her, however when he learnt about the possibility of her pregnancy, he mistreated her, and threatened her with dire consequences if she disclosed about their relationship to anyone.
The Court referred to Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, , wherein the Supreme Court observed that, “consent is stated to be an act of reason coupled with deliberation. It denotes an active will in mind of a person to permit the doing of the act complained of.”
Further, the Court referred to Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala, , wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that, “consent for the purpose of Section (of ), requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance of the moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent.”
Furthermore, the Court referred to Yedla Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P., , wherein it was observed that the intention of the accused was not honest from the beginning, and the kind of consent obtained by the accused cannot be said to be any consent because she was under a misconception of fact that the accused intended to marry her, and therefore, she submitted to sexual intercourse with him.
In the instant case, the Court noted that the veracity of the existence of such a clip taken from the CCTV of the Saloon was yet to be confirmed, however, the Court found it pertinent to note that at the Diagnostic Clinic where complainant and petitioner 1 went, complainant used petitioner 1’s name as her surname. Thus, the Court stated that it considered the same sufficient to corroborate the complainant’s statements.
The Court rejected the contention raised by the petitioners regarding the complainant having made complaints in the past against other person using fake name, with an intent to extort money, etc. The Court stated that previous complaints against other accused had little bearing on the instant proceedings, and the present complaint could not be disbelieved solely based on this contention. The Court further stated, while referring to Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand, , that it could not conduct a mini trial at this stage to determine the veracity of these previous complaints, under its jurisdiction under Article of the , and the same could be tested by the Trial Court.
Therefore, in the light of the above, petitioners 2 and 3 were alleged to have beaten the complainant along with petitioner 1, and hence, Section of was invoked. The Court refused to quash the FIR and dismissed the petition.
Lastly, it requested the Trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
[X v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 12881 of 2023, decided on 22-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Dr. Justice Neela Gokhale
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Nitin Sejpal, Akshata B. Desai, Advocates;
For the respondents: A.I Satpute, APP; Amit Mane, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
Corresponding Section of the (“BNS”)
Section ,
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
Section of
The post appeared first on .