NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the question which had rankled the Delhi high court last year — can a failed consensual relationship between adults lead to filing of rape charges against the man?
In a judgment last year, the HC had flagged the issue and said rape cases were being used as "a weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and even force a man to marry.
The Supreme Court did not pass any order. But it expressed anxiety over the recent spurt in cases where the women in failed relationships had filed rape charges against the men accusing them of inducing them into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.
The case before the apex court concerned a failed relationship between a top IDFC banker and a former cabin crew member with an international airline. The man said the highly educated and net savvy woman knew all along that he was married with two children and it was impossible to hide his marital status. He said he could not have induced sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.
The woman in her complaint accused him of sexually abusing her on the promise of marriage and threatening to circulate an indecent video of her prepared by him.
A vacation bench of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice SK Singh asked: "Why did you take the indecent photograph? You say it was a selfie. Is it possible to take selfie of a whole body?
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused, said: "People get carried away in such relationships. They had a peculiar relationship. The bench asked, "Peculiar? It can be called a cupid relationship not a stupid relationship."
When Luthra said that "breach of promise to marry" was not an ingredient for rape charges, the bench asked: "Where is it held (by a court) that if you had a relationship for two years (with a woman), it becomes rape when it failed?"
Luthra conceded that there was a judgment to that effect by the Supreme Court. But, the bench said it must have been a one-off case and issued notice to Delhi Police, which is investigating the case for more than a year during which the accused banker was on interim bail.
The police had filed eight reports detailing the status of investigation into the case and had even changed the investigating officer on the complaint of the woman that the accused was being favored.
Before agreeing to examine the legal question involved in the case, the bench asked the accused banker to return any money that was allegedly due from him to her. Luthra said the accused had joined investigation 21 times and handed over all articles — cameras, laptops and phone SIM cards — as demanded by police.
No purpose would be served by arresting the man who had cooperated with the investigation and had been on interim bail for nearly 10 months during which the High Court was monitoring the investigation, he said assailing the HC decision to reject the bail plea of the accused.
The HC had questioned the basis for filing of rape charges in a failed relationship three times last year.
It had said: "Many of the cases are being reported by those women who have consensual physical relationship with a man but when the relationship breaks due to one reason or the other, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta to extort money and sometimes even to force the boy to get married to her."
It had asked the trial court judges to "cautiously examine the intentions of the girl to find out whether the rape complaint is genuine or has mala fide motives."
In a judgment last year, the HC had flagged the issue and said rape cases were being used as "a weapon for vengeance and vendetta" to harass and even force a man to marry.
The Supreme Court did not pass any order. But it expressed anxiety over the recent spurt in cases where the women in failed relationships had filed rape charges against the men accusing them of inducing them into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.
The case before the apex court concerned a failed relationship between a top IDFC banker and a former cabin crew member with an international airline. The man said the highly educated and net savvy woman knew all along that he was married with two children and it was impossible to hide his marital status. He said he could not have induced sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.
The woman in her complaint accused him of sexually abusing her on the promise of marriage and threatening to circulate an indecent video of her prepared by him.
A vacation bench of Justice Vikramjit Sen and Justice SK Singh asked: "Why did you take the indecent photograph? You say it was a selfie. Is it possible to take selfie of a whole body?
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the accused, said: "People get carried away in such relationships. They had a peculiar relationship. The bench asked, "Peculiar? It can be called a cupid relationship not a stupid relationship."
When Luthra said that "breach of promise to marry" was not an ingredient for rape charges, the bench asked: "Where is it held (by a court) that if you had a relationship for two years (with a woman), it becomes rape when it failed?"
Luthra conceded that there was a judgment to that effect by the Supreme Court. But, the bench said it must have been a one-off case and issued notice to Delhi Police, which is investigating the case for more than a year during which the accused banker was on interim bail.
The police had filed eight reports detailing the status of investigation into the case and had even changed the investigating officer on the complaint of the woman that the accused was being favored.
Before agreeing to examine the legal question involved in the case, the bench asked the accused banker to return any money that was allegedly due from him to her. Luthra said the accused had joined investigation 21 times and handed over all articles — cameras, laptops and phone SIM cards — as demanded by police.
No purpose would be served by arresting the man who had cooperated with the investigation and had been on interim bail for nearly 10 months during which the High Court was monitoring the investigation, he said assailing the HC decision to reject the bail plea of the accused.
The HC had questioned the basis for filing of rape charges in a failed relationship three times last year.
It had said: "Many of the cases are being reported by those women who have consensual physical relationship with a man but when the relationship breaks due to one reason or the other, the women use the law as a weapon for vengeance and personal vendetta to extort money and sometimes even to force the boy to get married to her."
It had asked the trial court judges to "cautiously examine the intentions of the girl to find out whether the rape complaint is genuine or has mala fide motives."
Post a Comment