The complaint was lodged by the victim in 2019, wherein she alleged that she had been in a relationship with the accused since 1997 and that they had engaged in sexual relations. She further claimed to have undergone two abortions at the behest of the accused.
Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court was hearing an appeal against the Sessions Court's decision to deny the accused's discharge in the case.
The complaint was lodged by the victim in 2019, wherein she alleged that she had been in a relationship with the accused since 1997 on the pretext of marriage they had engaged in sexual relations. She further claimed to have undergone two abortions at the behest of the accused.
In 2019, the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the sessions court, which observed that the victim had engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with the accused for 20-25 years. The Sessions Court noted that it appeared to be a case of consensual sexual involvement and did not amount to rape under false promise.
In 2019, the applicant sought the high court's intervention to quash the FIR under section 482 of the CrPc, but this plea was dismissed.
Notably, in 2011, the victim had married another man and lived with him for five years. Subsequently, she resumed her relationship with the accused and eventually filed a complaint, accusing the applicant of cheating and rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
The high court found that the continuation of the physical relationship with the accused had nothing to do with the promise of marriage.
“On visiting the contents of the charge sheet, it is pertinent to note that the statements of the family members of respondent No.2 are recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. It can be gathered from these statements that on 3.1.2011, the respondent No.2 married with Shrikant Pratap Kharat, R/o. Ghatkopar and she resided with him for a considerable period. The respondent No.2 had quarrel with her husband, even she lodged complaint against him. Thereafter, she left his company and started residing with the applicant, so also, continued her physical relations with him. The aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the continuation of the sexual relationship has nothing to do with the promise of marriage. The respondent No.2 had married with Shrikant Kharat and still she continued her physical relationship with the applicant” the order reads.
Therefore, the high court proceeded to discharge the accused in the case and set aside the order of the session’s court.
Case Title: Harish Panditrao Bhailume vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
No comments:
Post a Comment