Reporter:
Last updated:
The HC noted that even after the alleged incident in 2001, the complainant continued to have a relationship with the petitioner and the nature of the relationship was further complicated by financial transactions between the two. (File photo)
While quashing the case, the court noted that the woman had an ulterior motive in filing the FIR after the money borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff was due.
The Kerala High Court in a recent ruling quashed the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioner citing the apparent and unexplained delay of 16 years in filing the rape case. The Court emphasized that this delay was fatal to the prosecution's case because it increased the likelihood of erroneous influence.
Justice A Badharudeen, presiding over the case, said: “The law provides that delay is material and equally decisive unless the delay is properly explained. There is no correct explanation for long delay here. When the same is delayed till 16 years, in After a relationship lasting 16 years, the same content is fatal and the same content will hinder the prosecution because the possibility of false suggestion is very obvious.
The case concerned an allegation that the complainant committed rape in 2001 against the de facto complainant, a married woman. Section 376 charges.
Advocate V Sethunath, counsel for the petitioner argued that the first information report (FIR) was filed after 16 years and although the FIR was initially filed against four persons, the final report was filed only against the petitioner. The defense further argued that the petitioner borrowed Rs 20 lakh from the complainant during their relationship, which showed that their sexual relationship was consensual. It is said that the two parties have reached a settlement on the matter.
The court considered whether the 16-year delay in reporting the sexual assault allegation was detrimental to the prosecution's case. It noted that the complainant continued to have a relationship with the petitioner even after the alleged incident in 2001, the nature of which was further complicated by financial transactions between the two.
OHCHR further noted that allegations of rape may be motivated by ulterior motives, particularly if they involve financial transactions between the parties. “The allegation of rape made 16 years later is not prima facie credible because of the long delay and the relationship should be considered consensual in nature. Beyond that, there is an ulterior motive in making the allegation of rape, especially when the defendant's when the money is said to belong to the complainant in fact,” the court observed.
The judge also held that the complainant had no grievance and submitted an affidavit stating that the matter had been resolved.
In light of these findings, the court dismissed the criminal proceedings against the defendants.
