Bombay High Court frees man of rape charge

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently dropped a rape charge against a man who was booked following a complaint lodged by his fiancée. While dropping the charge, the high court observed the girl, a college lecturer, is highly educated and therefore the consent for sexual relations cannot be said to have been obtained by fraud.

The complainant was mature enough to understand the consequences of having sexual relations with a man, the court said. The HC also observed, “It cannot be said in any manner that the ‘promise to marry’ was a condition precedent for giving free consent for sex before marriage”. A single bench of Justice Mrudula Bhatkar was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Kunal Mandilya through his lawyer Krupali Rajani. According to the petition the accused was charged under Section 376 (rape). The Kalyan sessions court had rejected his discharge application, following which the accused challenged it before the high court.

According to the prosecution, the complainant is a lecturer in a reputed Mumbai college, where she has been teaching Accounts since 2007. In 2010, she became friendly with the petitioner. From January 2011 to December 2013, both of them were in a sexual relationship with each other. According to the complainant, the petitioner had promised that he would marry her. The duo informed their respective families and they got engaged on February 15, 2013. The wedding was also fixed for December 26, 2013.

The complainant alleged that after getting engaged, the petitioner had demanded money from her and she gave him Rs 1,30,000 and Rs 1,50,000 respectively to him. She said he also forcefully had sex with her twice after getting engaged. The petitioner in November 2013, declared in front of both the families that he would not marry her. When the woman met the petitioner and tried to convince him, he allegedly demanded Rs five lakh for the same. The marriage was eventually cancelled and the woman filed a police complaint. While discharging the accused, the court said there is no material against the accused to charge him under Section 376.