Introduction:

In a controversial case before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, a FIR for rape and criminal intimidation was quashed due to doubts raised over the credibility of the prosecutrix’s claims. The case, involving a marriage between the accused-petitioner and the prosecutrix, raised questions about consent and coercion in the context of their relationship.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Representing the accused-husband, Senior Advocate Manish Datt and Advocate Nishank Pal Varma contended that the allegations of rape were untenable since both parties were married. They argued that the complaint was filed as retaliation amidst a marital dispute, suggesting ulterior motives behind the accusations.

Respondent’s Arguments:

On behalf of the state and the victim, Dy. Govt. Advocate Santosh Yadav & Advocate Mayank Shrivastava asserted that the accused had repeatedly raped the prosecutrix under false promises of marriage. They highlighted the coercive tactics employed by the accused, including threats of violence, to compel the prosecutrix into submission.

Court’s Judgement:

In its judgement, the single-judge bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecutrix’s claims. The court noted the prosecutrix’s failure to file a FIR despite alleging repeated acts of rape before the marriage. Furthermore, the subsequent marriage between the parties cast doubt on the prosecutrix’s version, as it seemed incongruous for her to marry the accused if she had been forcefully raped by him.

The court emphasized that the prosecutrix’s statement lacked consistency and failed to inspire confidence. It noted discrepancies in her account, including the absence of injuries documented in the Medical Legal Case (MLC) report. Additionally, the court highlighted the prosecutrix’s decision to marry the accused even after alleging rape, suggesting a lack of credibility in her allegations.

Based on these observations, the court quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the accused-husband. The court also allowed the criminal revision against the trial court’s order that dismissed the application for discharge. This judgement reflects the complexities surrounding consent and coercion in marital relationships and underscores the importance of carefully evaluating the evidence in such cases.