Last updated:
The bench also noted that the FIR was filed in 2018 without giving any explanation for the delay. (Representative picture: News18)
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale on Wednesday said the contents of the FIR “clearly indicate the existence of a consensual relationship between the parties”
The Bombay High Court has quashed a case filed against a 73-year-old man for allegedly sexually abusing a woman since 1987, noting that the relationship was consensual.
A division bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale on Wednesday said the contents of the FIR “clearly indicate a consensual relationship”.
The bench also noted that the FIR was filed in 2018 without giving any explanation for the delay.
“The parties were involved in an indulgent sexual relationship for 31 years. The complainant never said anything about her alleged objections to the relationship.
“This is a classic case where the relationship deteriorates and the complainant lodges a complaint with the police,” the HC said.
According to the case, the woman joined the man's company in 1987.
Thereafter, over a period of 30 years from July 1987 to 2017, the accused raped her in many hotels in Kalyan, Bhiwandi and other places.
According to the case, he promised to marry her and in 1993 placed the 'mangalsutra' around her neck and declared her his second wife. and added that he would not allow her to marry anyone else.
She claimed that in 1996 the defendant suffered a heart attack so she took care of the business.
However, in September 2017, her mother suffered from cancer and she had to take time off.
When she returned to work, she found the office closed and the company door locked.
When she contacted the man again, he refused to marry her and did not hand over documents related to banks, income tax, an agreement related to a medical shop and gold 'mangalsutra'. He also refused to meet her.
The judge held that the FIR itself showed that the woman knew that the accused was married and despite knowing this, she believed his assurances about marriage.
“She was mature enough to know that the law prohibited second marriages, and the indictment did not allege that the defendant promised to divorce his first wife and then marry her again. Even so, this was purely wishful thinking on the part of the woman that the defendant had a relationship with his current wife. He will marry her after the divorce,” the court said.
The Supreme Court judge noted that over the past 31 years, the woman had many opportunities to break away and complain against the defendant, but she failed to do so.
(This report has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from associated news agency – PTI)
