Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

On Wednesday, the Bombay High Court dismissed a rape case, citing that the illicit relationship between the victim and the applicant had persisted for 31 years, and the complaint was lodged only when their relationship turned sour. 

The bench of Justice AS Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale held, “Thus, it is clear that, only when the Company shut down and the Applicant refused to hand over documents relating to purchase of medical shop etc. that the complainant has approached the police. This is a classic case of relationship between the parties turning sour and thereafter the complainant lodging a police complaint”. 

An application was filed by the applicant, through Advocate Hitesh G. Ramchandani, seeking to quash an FIR filed against him for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The woman, represented by Advocate Ninand Muzumdar, alleged that after completing her 12th Standard education, she began working at the applicant’s company, where 10-12 other employees were also employed. One day while she worked, the applicant approached her, hugged her, and kissed her. She attempted to resist, but he forcibly engaged in sexual relations with her on a wooden table, silenced her screams with a handkerchief, and threatened to defame her if she reported the incident.

The woman also claimed that the applicant forbade her from marrying anyone else and threatened to defame her if she attempted to do so. Following his heart attack in 1996, she managed the company affairs. In September 2017, after her mother fell ill with cancer, she took leave. Upon returning, she discovered the office closed and the company gate locked. She tried to contact the applicant, but he was unreachable.

Advocate Ramchandani argued that the case represented a consensual relationship without elements of force. He contended that a breach of a promise to marry does not necessarily constitute cheating or rape, and the woman’s statements to the police indicated a consensual relationship. He also noted that the complainant had not lodged any grievances for 31 years, suggesting that the delay alone justified quashing the FIR. He further claimed that the woman continued to partner with the applicant in the medical shop at Mulund, arguing that the FIR was filed solely due to a deteriorated relationship and did not reveal any cognizable offense.

The court noted that the FIR indicated a consensual relationship, with the parties being involved for 31 years, and the woman never expressed objections to the relationship. Furthermore, the FIR did not provide any explanation for the delay in reporting. 

The court further observed that “Applicant was married and despite this knowledge, she continued to believe his assurance regarding marriage. She is adult enough to know that the law forbids a second marriage and there is no allegation in the complaint that, the Applicant promised to divorce his first wife and then marry her”. The court also remarked that despite numerous opportunities over the past 31 years, the woman never filed a complaint until the company's shutdown and the applicant refused to provide documents related to a medical shop. 

In this case, the court opined that the physical relationship between the woman and the applicant cannot be deemed against her will or without consent. Based on the available evidence, the court held that no case of rape or cheating was established.

Therefore, the court quashed the FIR and allowed the application.

Case Title: Lalchand Sirumal Bhojwani v The State of Maharashtra (2024:BHC-AS:30034-DB)