The Supreme Court in the case Ajeet Singh vs. the State Of Uttar Pradesh observed and has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-appellant for raping a 25-year-old woman on the pretext of marriage, held that there was a consensual relationship that culminated into marriage.
The court in the case observed and did not find any basis for the allegation that the physical relationship was due to the false promise of marriage as, ultimately, the marriage was solemnised.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal in the case observed that the allegation raised was that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage.
The Division bench in the case observed that the allegations made are such that ‘no prudent person’ can ever conclude that there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant.
The court stated that this is the case that the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant.
In the present case, the complaint has been filed by the father i.e., the third respondent of a victim wherein he alleged that the appellant was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi and his daughter and appellant met and developed love for each other. Thus, the appellant assured the victim to marry her.
Therefore, the appellant prepared a certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir wherein he alleged that by playing fraud, the appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim. Further, the appellant left the victim at his father’s residence and this leads to the filing of a complaint against the appellant.
The High Court in the case observed and has declined to quash the FIR, the appellant has preferred this present appeal. The counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the attention of the court that the notice has been issued by the victim’s advocate. Thus, the victim admitted that a marriage was solemnized between her and the appellant and the respondent supported the impugned judgment.
The court in the case observed that as per the notice, the victim has been described as the wife of the appellant. The notice issued also acknowledged that the marriage between the appellant and the victim was solemnized.
It was alleged in the notice that the victim was turned away from the matrimonial home by the appellant on the ground that his father wanted a sum for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs. Thus, by the said notice, the victim called upon the appellant to arrange ‘Vidai.’
Therefore, the Court also perused the victim’s statement made before the police officer.
It has also been stated by her that the appellant took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and solemnized the marriage.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has held that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship that culminated in the marriage.
Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR and has allowed the appellant’s appeal.