31 July 2024 Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

In a recent legal development of Lalchand Sirumal Bhojwani v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through Senior Inspector, Mulund West Police Station, Mumbai & Another, the High Court addressed the contentious issue of consent in sexual relationships and the implications of delayed allegations in a case concerning FIR No. 303/2018. The applicant sought to quash this FIR, which had been registered against him for offenses under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The case originated from a complaint lodged by the respondent, who alleged that the applicant, her employer, had established a sexual relationship with her, beginning in 1987 when she was only 18 years old. The complainant claimed that this relationship was marred by coercion and threats. Despite multiple incidents of sexual relations over the years, she did not file a complaint until 2018, following the closure of the applicant's business and the end of perceived threats against her.

Legal Arguments:

The applicant's counsel, Mr. Hitesh Ramchandani, argued that the relationship was consensual and highlighted the absence of any immediate complaints over the 31-year period. He contended that the FIR represented a souring of the relationship rather than a legitimate grievance. Furthermore, he emphasized that the complainant had continued to engage in business with the applicant, suggesting a mutual understanding.

In contrast, the complainant's counsel, Mr. Ninand Muzumdar, argued that the historical context of the relationship played a crucial role in the delayed reporting. He noted that societal stigma often prevented women from speaking out about sexual abuse at that time. He maintained that the nature of their interactions constituted coercion and that the complainant's fears and need for employment contributed to her silence for so many years.

Court's Observations:

The court closely examined the details of the relationship as described in the FIR. It found that the complainant had not presented any substantial explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, which raised questions about the legitimacy of her allegations. The judges noted that there had been numerous opportunities over three decades for the complainant to seek legal recourse if the relationship was indeed non-consensual. The court referred to relevant legal precedents, including a Supreme Court ruling that criticized delayed FIRs without sufficient justification, reinforcing that mere accusations after such a long period could be grounds for quashing a case.

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the High Court ruled that the FIR did not substantiate claims of rape or cheating, asserting that the nature of the relationship appeared consensual. The court quashed FIR No. 303/2018, asserting that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of the legal process. This case underscores the complexities surrounding consent, societal pressures, and the challenges of delayed allegations in legal contexts. It highlights the necessity for a careful examination of the facts in cases involving long-term relationships, particularly those laden with claims of coercion and deceit.