A view of the Delhi High Court. file Photo Credit: The Hindu
“The crime of rape is one of the most heinous crimes against women but some people use the legal provisions against it as a weapon to harass their male counterparts unnecessarily,” the Delhi High Court observed while quashing an FIR against a man.
The petitioner filed an application in the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for sexually harassing a woman with whom he was in a previous relationship. The High Court noted that the FIR was nothing but an afterthought.
Editorial | Crime and Shame: France on the Gang Rape Case
The recordings, WhatsApp chats and statements recorded before the Magistrate clearly proved that the content of the offense of rape was not complete as there was consensual physical intercourse between the man and the woman, which was not based on a false promise. of marriage.
“It is true that the provision under which an FIR is registered is the most heinous crime against women. But, it is also an established fact that some people use it as a weapon to harass their male counterparts unnecessarily,” Justice Chandra. Dhari Singh said in a recent judgment.
The court said that it is an excellent example of how an innocent person has to face unfair hardship due to the abuse of the punishment system, and the court is of the firm opinion that nothing will come out of the case if the case is heard.
It shows that the courts are bound to look into the possibility of the presence of an ulterior motive on the part of the prosecutor to take revenge from the individual. The man’s lawyer has claimed that there was a relationship between the petitioner and the complainant before and the physical relationship was maintained by consent.
“Due to some dispute, the complainant and the man did not marry each other and later a case of coercion was filed against her,” said the lawyer.
However, the public prosecutor opposed the dismissal petition and said that there were serious allegations against the petitioner and the complaint clearly confirmed that he had sexually assaulted the woman.
Considering the material on record, the Court noted that the woman was in constant touch with the petitioner and both of them used to share their lives and other personal details on a daily basis.
“The petitioner has no dispute that there was physical relationship between the parties, however, he claims that it was consensual. This is also established from the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Although the prosecution stated that the parties had taken steps for marriage, the family did not consent for caste reasons. ,’ he said.
The court also noted that despite the reservations of the man’s family, he was ready to marry the woman but later she showed no interest and had a relationship with another person.
“The WhatsApp chats between the parties also show that the prosecutor had sent several messages to the petitioner and informed her about her decision to marry another person. Therefore, the instant FIR is nothing but an afterthought,” it added.
published – Dec 21, 2024 01:32 pm IST