The Bombay High Court on Wednesday declined to quash an FIR against 3 businessmen from Alibaug in Raigadh, Maharashtra, who were accused of raping a 26-year-old law student.
According to the prosecution, the victim knew one of the businessmen, a salon owner, and started dating him in December 2022. The complaint alleges that he forced himself on her multiple times, claiming he intended to marry her. When the victim thought she was pregnant, he allegedly assaulted and blackmailed her with intimate videos, sharing these with his two friends, who also threatened her.
The woman attempted suicide and was hospitalized, prompting the registration of the case against the men.
Advocate Nitin Sejpal, representing the accused, argued the relationship was consensual and accused the victim of habitual false complaints to extort money. Advocates Amit Mane and Aashish Satpute, representing the victim, countered by pointing to evidence including the accused’s presence at a sonography appointment and the intimate videos shared among the accused.
Justices Ajay Gadkari and Neela Gokhale, after reviewing the arguments, noted, “It does appear from the contents of the FIR that there may have been a relationship between the parties. However, when examined carefully, it transpires that the victim was compelled to continue her relationship under fear of being defamed.”
The court acknowledged that the victim believed the accused intended to marry her, but noted, “The intention of the accused is evident from his reaction upon learning about her pregnancy. He immediately resorted to beating her and threatening to harm her and her family members if she made any complaint. This lays threadbare his intent to deceive her only to engage in sexual activity.”
The bench dismissed the argument that the victim’s past behavior affected the current case, stating, “Previous complaints against other accused have little bearing on the criminal proceedings impugned at this stage. The present complaint cannot be disbelieved merely on this basis.”
The court concluded that the allegations disclosed the commission of the offences, and noted, “This defense (of the accused) can be tested at the appropriate stage by the trial court. We are not required to conduct a mini-trial at this stage.”
