The Bombay High Court recently quashed a rape case against a city lawyer, observing that the allegations stemmed from a soured relationship. The court noted that the complainant, who was married at the time, had entered into a consensual relationship with the accused.
“It is not merely a case of a relationship having gone sour, but even financial transactions appear to have gone wrong… If the criminal procedures are allowed to be continued, it is not likely to result in conviction. Therefore, it would amount to abuse of process of law if such proceedings are allowed to be continued,” a The of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said.
The complainant, who had returned to India with her child following marital discord, claimed that the lawyer took advantage of her vulnerable state, leading to an intimate relationship she sometimes felt was against her will. She knew the lawyer since school time and contacted him while seeking divorce.
However, advocate for the lawyer, Satyavrat Joshi, argued the relationship was consensual, adding that the complainant had moved in with the lawyer in 2020 with her family’s knowledge.
Also, the complainant had transferred Rs 33 lakh to the lawyer. Joshi claimed that of this, Rs 5 lakh was towards his consulting fees, whereas Rs 28 lakh was loan, which he returned subsequently. He alleged the complainant later demanded an additional Rs 5 lakh and threatened to file a false complaint when he refused.
The complainant’s advocate, Anjali Patil, contended that the accused had m.pulated her trust during a vulnerable period and financially exploited her.
After reviewing the FIR and chargesheet, the Court found insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of repeated rape under the provisions of theIPC. It noted that the complainant and the accused were consenting adults in a relationship that had turned acrimonious.
“The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (complainant), being two consenting adults, indulged in a relationship that went wrong. Continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process,” the bench concluded while quashing the FIR and the chargesheet.
