The Court noted that the statement of the complainant disclosed that she knew the petitioner since 2010 and she came to know about the fact that the petitioner was married five to six years ago. Still, she was in a sexual relationship with him till 2019. She claimed that the petitioner had told her he was moving for divorce but she later came to know that he was in connection with some other women as well.
From the complainant's statement and other material on record, the Court concluded that the petitioner had no mala fide intention or clandestine motives to conduct the alleged rape under the pretext of marriage.
The fact the complainant had had a relationship with the petitioner since 2010 and she continued the relationship knowing about his marriage from 2013 onwards would nullify the story regarding the sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marrying her, the Court opined.
Therefore, it quashed the FIR registered against the petitioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment