SC grants protection from arrest for eight weeks to accused
We Care...!!!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday granted safety from arrest for eight weeks to a person, accused of raping a lady on the false pretext of marriage, and requested whether or not bodily relationship between a pair, residing collectively as husband and spouse may very well be known as rape.
“If a couple is living together as husband and wife, the husband may be a brutal man but can you call the act of sexual intercourse between them as rape?,” noticed a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde.
The bench, additionally comprising Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, noticed this whereas listening to the pleas, together with the one filed by the accused who has moved the apex court docket in opposition to the Allahabad High Court‘s April 2019 order which had refused to quash the FIR lodged in opposition to him at Gautam Budh Nagar district in Uttar Pradesh.
During the listening to performed by video-conferencing, the counsel showing for the complainant lady mentioned that the accused had taken her consent by fraud and it was “not a free consent”.
The lawyer claimed that in 2014, the accused took her to a temple in Manali in Himachal Pradesh the place they carried out “marriage rituals”.
“Making false promise of marriage is wrong. Even a woman should not make such promise and then break off,” the bench mentioned.
Senior advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, showing for the petitioner, mentioned that the accused and the girl have been in a live-in relation for 2 years and later she lodged an FIR alleging rape on the false promise of marriage.
Makhija mentioned that offence below part 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been added within the FIR to harass the person.
The counsel showing for the complainant lady alleged that the person had pretended to be her husband however later, he married another person.
He claimed that the girl was bodily abused by the accused and referred to her medical information.
Makhija argued that this can be a ordinary act of the complainant as she had achieved this with two others in her workplace.
“You know what the courts have said about calling rape victims habitual,” the bench informed Makhija, including, “We suggest that you withdraw this and apply for discharge after some evidence is led”.
“Vibha Datta Makhija, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to apply for discharge after some evidence are led. Permission is granted,” the bench mentioned in its order.
“However, there shall be a stay on arrest of the petitioners for a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, the trial court will decide the question of the liberty of the petitioners. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for,” it mentioned.
The counsel showing for the state of Uttar Pradesh mentioned that one of many petitioners, who has additionally filed a separate plea within the apex court docket within the matter, has not been chargesheeted by the police within the case.
“In view of this, Vibha Datta Makhija, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petition. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn,” the bench mentioned.
The excessive court docket had refused to quash the FIR within the case saying, “From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are involved in the serious offences hence no ground exists for quashing of the FIR or staying the arrest of the petitioners.”

Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »