MP High Court quashes FIR against govt doctor accused of rape

Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) [India], July 8 (ANI): Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed an FIR against a government doctor accused of rape citing that the complainant and the doctor had a relationship of over 10 years and a case of rape could not be registered against him because he refused to marry her.

The FIR was registered against the doctor, posted in the government hospital, Katni district on November 26, 2021, after a written complaint was made to the police at Mahila Thana, Katni. The complainant alleged that the doctor developed physical relations with her by making false promises of marriage.

“In the complaint it is stated by the woman that they have known each other since last 11 years. It is stated by the woman that when the petitioner was studying in school, she was studying in Class 11. During summer vacation, the petitioner used to come to his village and meet her. There was an affair between them. The petitioner had also proposed and assured her for marriage and also asked her to continue her studies and as such in the month of June, 2010. When he came to his village during summer vacation, he developed physical relations with her. This relationship continued till 2020,” the statement in the High Court order read.

Thereafter when he was posted in the Government Hospital, Katni as a doctor, he often called the woman in his house allotted to him in the hospital premises and used to develop physical relations with her, but later on he refused to marry her. Thereafter, the woman informed her father and lodged a report alleging that the petitioner had threatened her that if the report is lodged, he would kill her, it added.

The judge stated in the order, “It is clear that in 2010 when the incident occurred for the first time, the woman got cause of action to register an FIR as, according to her, physical relation was developed by the petitioner despite her resistance on the pretext of marriage and that relationship continued till 2020. However, no FIR was lodged by her and when the petitioner refused to enter into the marriage then only a report was lodged in 2021.”

“The consent cannot be considered to be a consent obtained under misconception of fact reason being the relationship between the parties existed for a long period of 10 years but the woman never realised that the petitioner was exploiting her by developing physical relation with her continuously. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioner that he developed physical relation with the woman on a false promise of marriage,” he added.

“The Supreme Court has very specifically observed that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances,” the statement in order read.

“It is also apt to mention here that considering the facts and circumstances of the case parties were called to the Court and they were advised to get married but even in the Court the parents of the parties because of some differences could not reach a consensus and as such the attempt made by the Court to resolve the dispute failed. Thus, in my opinion, the present case does not come within the definition of rape as defined in Section 375 of IPC because consensual relationship and affair between the parties are apparent on the face of the record and admitted by the woman herself,” the statement further read.

“The FIR registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mahila Thana, Katni district for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and consequently the charge sheet/Final Report filed against the petitioner by the prosecution on account of registration of said criminal case is also hereby quashed,” the Judge said in the order.