The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed a rape case filed by a woman claiming to be the “second wife” of the accused. The court observed that the allegations were frivolous and appeared to be an attempt to pressure the accused for financial benefits.
Justice Anand Pathak, presiding over the case, noted that the delay of 18 years in filing the complaint raised serious doubts about its authenticity.
Case Overview
The complainant, a 41-year-old woman, alleged that the accused, a 55-year-old man named Manohar Silawat, raped her in May 2001. She claimed that she became pregnant from the incident, resulting in the birth of a child. She further alleged that the accused continued to have a physical relationship with her and made intermittent payments for her maintenance while threatening her with dire consequences if she refused his advances.
The accused challenged the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Defense Argument
The petitioner argued that both he and the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and followed their community custom of Natra (a customary live-in arrangement resembling marriage). With the consent of his first wife, he had been cohabiting with the complainant for years.
The defense highlighted that the allegations surfaced only after the petitioner refused to transfer his property to the complainant. The petitioner’s counsel also referred to a maintenance application filed by the complainant under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2019, where she claimed to be his wife and sought financial support after being allegedly removed from their shared household.
Court’s Observations
The court noted that the complainant had lived with the accused for years and even had a son with him, who is now 20 years old. Justice Pathak remarked that filing such a complaint after 18 years undermined its credibility and appeared to be an attempt to harass the accused.
The court stated that allowing the case to proceed would be a miscarriage of justice. It quashed the FIR and the subsequent criminal proceedings, thereby granting relief to the petitioner.
Key Takeaways:
- The case highlights the importance of addressing delays in filing complaints to ensure justice.
- The court emphasized that false allegations can cause undue hardship and disrupt lives.
- Community customs like Natra were also acknowledged in the judgment.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==