Woman willingly staying with man can’t file rape case if relationship fails: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a woman, who was in a relationship with a man and willingly staying with him, cannot file a case of rape, after the relationship had gone sour.

It ordered release of the appellant on bail to the satisfaction of the competent authority.

A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath noted the admitted case of the complainant that she was in a relationship with the appellant for a period of four years. Also, the complaint’s counsel admitted that she was 21 years old, when the relationship started.

“In view of the said fact, the complainant has willingly been staying with the appellant and had the relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not working out, the same cannot be a ground for lodging an FIR for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC,” said the bench.

Ansaar Mohammad had moved the top court challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s May 19 order, which dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377 and 506 IPC.

The top court granted anticipatory bail to Mohammad who was accused of rape, unnatural offences, and criminal intimidation. “Consequently, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the competent authority,” it said.

However, the bench clarified that the observations in the present order are only for the purposes of deciding the pre-arrest bail application. “The investigation shall proceed uninfluenced by the observations made in the present order. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of,” said the bench.

The high court had said: “It is an admitted position that petitioner had made the relation with the complainant by promising to marry her and due to their relation, one female child was born. So, looking at the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.”