SLC Reads

Supreme Court: Failure of relationship is no ground for FIR for repeated rape when the woman had been willingly living with man for years.

Written By- Pretika Tiwari

[Ansaar Mohammad v. The State of Rajasthan & anr.]

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath was hearing an appeal against the Rajasthan High Court decision wherein the court had dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the appellant under sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 of IPC. The HC, in its order, had said, “It is an admitted position that petitioner had made the relation with the complainant by promising to marry her and due to their relation, one female child So, looking to the gravity of the offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

The counsel for the petitioner, appellant before SC, had stated that he had been falsely accused in the case, which the complaint has filed against him, which includes wrong facts and that the complainant, even though has already been married, had been ‘willingly’ living with him. At the same time, the petitioner made no such promises for marriage. On the other hand, the public prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant had stated that she is divorced and was living with the accused only because he had promised to marry her.

The SC bench had observed that the complainant had been in a relationship with the appellant for over four years since she was 21. According to the court, the complainant had been willingly living with the appellant. “Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC”, the apex court stated. The court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal by granting anticipatory bail to the man. However, the court also clarified that the above order is regarding the bail plea and that further investigation should not be influenced by the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts

Inside Court News

Last Updated on May 8, 2024 by News Desk The SC held that the time limit of 3 months that has been prescribed under...

Inside Court News

Last Updated on May 7, 2024 by News Desk On Tuesday, The SC took the Suo Motu cognizance regarding the mechanical entries that are...

Inside Court News

Last Updated on May 7, 2024 by News Desk On Monday the minimum marks criteria for interviews as a part of the selection criteria...

Inside Court News

Last Updated on May 4, 2024 by News Desk Rouse Avenue Court’s principal district and sessions judge, transferred the Bhushan Steel Money Laundering case,...

Exit mobile version