New Delhi:
The Supreme Court said on Monday that every consent relationship, where the possibility of a wedding may exist, cannot be given “the color of false excuses to get married” in the event of a fall.
A bench of Justice Biwi Nagratna and Satish Chandra Sharma saw the “growing trend” to resort to filing criminal proceedings when the relationship is sour.
“We find that there is a increasing tendency to resort to the beginning of criminal proceedings when relationships are sour. The relationship of every consent, where the possibility of marriage may exist, cannot be given a false excuse color to get married, in a fall,” said this.
The observation occurred when the apex court separated an order of the Calcutta High Court, which refused to discharge a former judicial officer in the FIR filed in 2015 for the alleged rape crime.
The appellant before the bench was a former judicial officer who supervised the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), City Civil Court, Calcutta.
An FIR was lodged by the complainant, who alleged that in 2014, during the pendency of a marital discord with her ex -husband, she came into contact with the appellant, who was separated from his wife.
She alleged that the appellant had assured that she would marry her and take full responsibility of her and her son from the first marriage, she was once divorced.
The complainant alleged that when his divorce was finalized, the appellant began to escape from him, asked him not to contact him.
The bench said that even though the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet were taken at the marked price, it was impossible that the complainant had attached only on the basis of marriage assurance in a physical relationship with the appellant.
“Looking at the factual matrix of the case, it is clear that the physical relationship between the complainant and the appellant was agreed, and it cannot be said without his consent or against his will,” it said.
Even if the relationship was considered based on the wedding offering, the woman could not argue the “misconception of fact” or “false excuses to marry”, the court said.
The verdict said, “It is a day that he had knowledge and was conscious of the fact that the appellant was in a marriage, although separated.” The bench stated that one could argue that the appellant was in a state of power to enhance the impact, however, there was nothing on the record to install “inspired” or “enticing”.
The bench said that such litigation misuses the process of law, the observation of any further litigation would only prolong the suffering of both parties, who were living their own different lives.
Therefore, the apex court decided to abolish the proceedings in the “interest of justice”.
Permission for the appeal, the bench separated the High Court’s February 2024 order and said that the appellant was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court in January 2016.
(Except for the headline, the story has not been edited by NDTV employees and is published by a syndicated feed.)
