The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed an FIR against a government doctor accused of rape, emphasizing the long-term consensual relationship between the complainant and the accused.
Court’s Observation
The court determined that the accusation of rape could not be substantiated merely because the doctor ultimately refused to marry the complainant.
The case originated from an FIR filed on November 26, 2021, by the complainant at the Mahila Thana police station in Katni district. The complainant alleged that the doctor, who was posted at the government hospital in Katni, had developed a physical relationship with her based on false promises of marriage.
According to the complaint, their relationship spanned over 10 years, starting in 2010 and continuing until 2020.
The High Court’s order recounted the details provided by the complainant, who stated that she had known the doctor since 2010 when she was in Class 11. The relationship began during a summer vacation when the doctor, who was then studying in school, visited his village and initiated an affair with her. During this period, the doctor allegedly proposed marriage and encouraged her to continue her studies, further solidifying their relationship. Physical relations between the two began in June 2010 and continued for a decade.
The complainant further stated that when the doctor was posted at the government hospital in Katni, he frequently invited her to his house, where they continued their physical relationship.
However, the situation deteriorated when the doctor refused to marry her, prompting her to inform her father and subsequently file a report with the police. She also alleged that the doctor threatened to kill her if she reported the matter.
More Into The Case
In its analysis, the High Court noted that the complainant had ample opportunity to register an FIR as early as 2010 when the physical relationship began under the pretext of marriage.
However, she only filed the FIR in 2021, after the doctor declined to marry her. The court remarked, “It is clear that in 2010 when the incident occurred for the first time, the woman got cause of action to register an FIR as, according to her, physical relation was developed by the petitioner despite her resistance on the pretext of marriage and that relationship continued till 2020.
However, no FIR was lodged by her and when the petitioner refused to enter into the marriage then only a report was lodged in 2021.”
The court concluded that the complainant’s consent could not be deemed as having been obtained under a misconception of fact, given the long-standing nature of their relationship. The judge stated, “The consent cannot be considered to be a consent obtained under misconception of fact reason being the relationship between the parties existed for a long period of 10 years but the woman never realized that the petitioner was exploiting her by developing physical relation with her continuously.”
The High Court referenced a Supreme Court ruling, which underscored the necessity of demonstrating that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise of marriage at the initial stage of the relationship. The court also acknowledged that there might be genuine circumstances where a person, despite having the best of intentions, is unable to marry the victim due to unavoidable reasons.
Proceedings
During the proceedings, the court attempted to mediate by suggesting that the parties consider marriage. However, this attempt failed due to unresolved differences between their families. The judge noted, “It is also apt to mention here that considering the facts and circumstances of the case parties were called to the Court and they were advised to get married but even in the Court the parents of the parties because of some differences could not reach a consensus and as such the attempt made by the Court to resolve the dispute failed.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that the case did not fall within the definition of rape as outlined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The consensual nature of the relationship was evident from the complainant’s own admissions. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and the charge sheet filed against the doctor, concluding that the allegations did not hold up under legal scrutiny.
The judge ordered, “The FIR registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mahila Thana, Katni district for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and consequently the charge sheet/Final Report filed against the petitioner by the prosecution on account of registration of said criminal case is also hereby quashed.”
