Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently underscored a well-established legal principle that the breakdown of a relationship cannot serve as the basis for filing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the offence of rape.

While granting anticipatory bail to the man, the bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said that the allegations in the FIR do not suggest that the accused had no intention to marry the woman and had made a false promise of marriage from the beginning.

The woman had filed an FIR accusing the man of having physical relations with her on the false pretext of marrying her. She alleged that after getting engaged to the accused, his family started demanding dowry, and when her father refused to provide money, the accused began avoiding her and refused to marry her.

On the contrary, the counsel for the accused contended that the marriage was called off because the woman and her family did not disclose her medical ailments and that the FIR was lodged to harm his career.

The judge said that the petitioner, being a government employee, would suffer “irreparable loss” and his career would be ruined if he were incarcerated in a false and frivolous case. “The petitioner has roots in society and would not flee from justice”, it added.

The judge said that the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was not applicable in this case.

"It is a settled law that if a relationship does not work out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC," the court observed.

The court noted that the complainant did not disclose any alleged forcible sexual relations with the accused for over four months. “It was determined that the matter of whether the petitioner had physical relations with the complainant with her consent or not would be subject to trial and could not be decided without evidence”, it said.

The court also noted that the prosecutrix did not disclose the alleged forcible sexual relation with her by the petitioner for more than 4 months.

“Although the prosecutrix has improved her version in the statement under Section 164 of the Code, the issue of whether the petitioner had physical relations with the prosecutrix with her consent or not is a matter of trial and cannot be decided without evidence. The petitioner is stated to be a government employee. There is no risk that the petitioner would flee from the trial”, it said.

“In case of arrest, the petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer”, the court ordered.

Case Title: Sushant Kumar v. The State