Team Herald
PANJIM: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has quashed and set aside an FIR and the subsequent chargesheet filed by the Women’s Police Station against a 32-year-old man from Agonda, currently residing in Fatorda, on allegations of rape.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The petitioner, a musician by profession had sought to have the FIR dated January 25, 2024, and the chargesheet dated March 22, 2024, dismissed.
The FIR was lodged by a woman who alleged that the petitioner had committed offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the complaint, the two met in October 2023 during an event in Panjim. On January 8, 2024, the petitioner invited the complainant to dinner at a friend’s restaurant. Since it was too late, he asked her to stay at his flat, where she alleged that he forcibly had sex with her. The complainant claimed that despite her distress, the petitioner reassured her by promising to marry her. The following evening, he dropped her home.
The complainant further alleged that they engaged in a sexual relationship on seven occasions under the promise of marriage. However, the petitioner later began to ignore her, citing his mother’s disapproval of their relationship. On January 25, the complainant discovered she was pregnant, leading her to allege that the petitioner had deceived her and raped her under the pretext of marriage.
Advocate Arun Bras De Sa, representing the petitioner, argued that the FIR should be quashed, asserting that even if the allegations were taken at face value, they did not constitute an offence. He contended that the FIR and chargesheet indicated a consensual relationship between two adults, rather than one based on a false promise of marriage.
Public Prosecutor S.G. Bhobe, representing the State, and Advocate Rohan Desai, counsel for the complainant, opposed the petition. They argued that since a chargesheet had been filed, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to seek relief from the Trial Court. They maintained that the petitioner had exploited the complainant under the guise of a promise to marry.
The division bench, comprising Justice M S Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes, concluded that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it appeared to be a consensual relationship rather than a forcible sexual encounter, thus failing to substantiate a charge of rape against the petitioner.
