Possibility Of Accused Benefitting From Victims' Fear In Going To Police Can't Be Ignored: Rajasthan High Court Declines To Quash Rape FIRs

The Rajasthan High Court declined to quash two FIRs–one lodged in February 2024 and the other in March 2024–registered against a man accused of engaging in sexual relations with two women under the false promise of marriage.

In doing so the court said that in the present case, the possibility of the accused taking benefit of the situation or fear instilled in women on reporting of sexual assault cases cannot be ignored. 

The common offence in both FIRs was IPC Section 376(2)(n) (commits rape repeatedly on the same woman), and the FIRs individually also contained offences of criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt. 

Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in his order observed that the facts disclosed in the FIRs indicated that complainants were in relationship with the petitioner for a considerable long period of time, but they were not in a "continuous relationship and were intermittent". It noted that the parties re-entered into the relationship again on being assured by the petitioner that he would marry the complainants.

It thereafter said:

"In Indian societal norms, the matters relating to sexual assault in large number of cases are not being reported by women timely in police due to the embarrassment which they may have to face later on. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the possibility of accused taking benefit of the situation or the fear instilled in the women victim thus cannot be ruled out. It is highly probable that the complainants of the impugned FIRs owing to the embarrassment and on being continuously promised by the petitioner that he would solemnize marriage with the complainants, did not report the matter to the police authorities as they were under a bonafide belief that the petitioner would keep his promise of performing marriage". 

The court further said that from the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the two FIRs, the possibility of the petitioner obtaining consent for sexual relations from the complainants under misconception of fact cannot be ruled out. The court further said that it cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and at the stage of Section 482CrPC the Court is not expected to either scan the entire material available on record or to record its finding on each of the charges levelled against the petitioner.

"...therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned FIRs cannot be labelled as false/frivolous FIRs which have been lodged with intention of wreak vengeance or with ulterior motives particularly when the case diaries of impugned FIRs produced before this Court indicate that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency has collected material to establish commission of an offence, warranting further investigation in the matter," the court added. 

The court note that in the two FIRs the specific stance of the two women was that the petitioner developed sexual relationship with them by making a false promise of marriage. The women had claimed that the petitioner since inception of these relationships, had no intention to honour his promise.

"The unambiguous stance of the complainants is that the petitioner with the intention to deceive the complainants to enter into physical relationship, obtained their consent under a fictitious assurance of marriage, which is not valid consent as per Section 90 IPC," the order notes. 

With respect to facts of FIR No.115/2024 the court said that it indicates that the petitioner "continuously evaded the false promise of marriage made to complainant- 'S'" which drove her to attempt to commit suicide by consuming heavy dosage of sleeping pills. It said,

"Further, the petitioner in order to protect himself, got prepared a stamp paper fortifying the factum of live in relationship, on which the signatures of the complainant- 'S' were obtained deceitfully without even allowing her to have a glance over the contents of the said documents. In the opinion of this Court, these acts and actions of the petitioner hint towards the fact that the petitioner had no intention of marrying the complainants from the very beginning. The document of live-in relationship was got prepared by the petitioner which prima facie indicates that he was giving a fictitious assurance to the complainant that he has started living with her as husband". 

With respect to FIR No.76/2024 the court said that it indicated that complainant 'A' initially refused to have physical relations but when the petitioner made a promise to marry, she entered into physical relations with him. Further, their relations discontinued when the petitioner went to rehabilitation centre. However, after returning from the rehabilitation centre, the petitioner again allured the complainant with a false promise to marry her and established sexual relations with her. 

The complaint filed by 'S' alleged that the accused pursued her for six to seven years, misleading her with false promises of marriage and repeatedly engaging in physical relations. Feeling betrayed when marriage was evaded, she attempted suicide and later discovered she had unknowingly signed a live-in relationship agreement.