A Person cannot be prosecuted under section 376 for Rape just because the mutual relationship and affair with consent turned sour

19 June 2023 · Advocate Rajiv Rajpurohit

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court had held and observed recently in REVISION APPLICATION NO.408 OF 2019 on 23rd March 2023.

Between Sameer Amrut Kondekar Applicant Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr Respondents

The Hon'ble has also cited the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1 while dealing with an Appeal seeking quashing of First Information Report under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. drew a distinction between a false promise to marry and not fulfilling a promise to marry, by relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. the State of Haryana. Therefore misusing the provision of law, if a relationship does not work due to the change in circumstances it is not necessary that every physical relationship amount to rape. The court has clearly said the psychical relationship with consent cannot be rape. ?In the circumstances above, refusal to discharge the Accused by the impugned order by exercising power available in the said Court, cannot be said to be justifiable exercise and that too merely with an observation, that at some time intercourse was forcible. Two mature persons coming together and investing in a relationship, one cannot be blamed only because the other complained of the act at some point in time when the relationship did not go well and for whatever reason need not ultimately culminate into a marriage. In the wake of the above, the impugned order dated 01.03.2019 cannot be sustained. Revision Application is allowed by discharging the Applicant in CR No. 61/2016 registered with Versova Police Station?