Description
The relationship does not appear to be consensual, the court heard. A rape case cannot be set aside simply because the victim consented, the Bombay High Court ruled on Wednesday while expressing its reluctance to set aside a rape FIR registered against T-series owner Bhushan Kumar. Mr. Kumar had filed the motion seeking dismissal from the FIR on the basis that the victim had withdrawn his complaint and consented to its dismissal.
However, a divisional court consisting of Justices AS Gadkari and Justice PD Naik noted that the mere fact that the claimant gave her consent was not enough to set aside the First Information Report (FIR) alleging rape.
"The mere fact that the parties consent does not mean that an FIR should be set aside under section 376 (violation) of the Indian Penal Code. We need to see the content of the FIR, the recorded statements to see if the offense was hateful or not. The relationship (in this case) from the content does not seem consensual," the court said.
Kumar's lawyer, Niranjan Mundargi, told the court that the FIR was registered in July 2021 for an incident believed to have occurred since 2017.
It indicated that a summary report B (false file or non-reservation against the accused) was presented by the police before the corresponding justice of the peace.
A local politician, Mallikarjun Pujari, filed a protest petition against the said B-summary, claiming that he helped the woman to register the FIR, however, the woman consented to terminate the procedure.
The investigating court dismissed the police report in April 2022.
The District Court reviewed the FIR on Wednesday, the affidavit filed by the plaintiff consenting for the case to be dismissed, and the order issued by the District Court.
The court considered that the documents did not show that the relationship between the defendant and the woman was consensual.
"The content of the consent affidavit is not sufficient to set aside the SIR. Generally, under Section 376, the SIR can be set aside with the plaintiff's consent. But that is after the SIR or affidavit shows that there was a consensual relationship. Here, the plaintiff only says that she does not want to continue with the case due to a 'circumstantial misunderstanding,'" the court said.
When the court expressed its reluctance to allow the motion and dismiss the case, Mundargi asked for time to present more evidence in support of the guilty plea.
The court then posted the case for a new hearing on July 2, 2023.
