Quashing a rape case against a Provincial Civil Service (PCS) officer, the Allahabad High Court Monday rubbished the allegations and said the victim in the case was a consenting partner. It also said consent was not taken forcibly under ‘death threat or fear of blackmailing’.
The order was issued by the bench of Justice Avnish Saxena. The court also quashed the chargesheet in the case.
The rape complainant, who claimed to be a PCS aspirant, alleged she was sexually assaulted in 2022 after she came in contact with the serving officer to seek guidance for the UP PCS examination.
She had accused the officer of rape as well as his cousin of molestation on various dates since 2022. The two accused further faced charges under the IT Act for allegedly sharing intimate photos and videos of the victim with her husband and family members.
A petition was then filed by the accused officer and his cousin to quash the cases lodged at a police station in Bareilly in December 2024. They also sought quashing of chargesheets and court proceedings.
What is the case about?
As per the FIR lodged in the case, the woman, who is married to an Army man and has two minor children, had alleged that her friend introduced her to her brother — the accused officer. The friend said her brother had cleared the PCS exam and could guide the complainant with the exam preparation.
The complainant alleged that in August 2022, the man called her to his birthday party at a hotel in Bareilly where he raped her, and recorded obscene videos and took photos. She alleged in the FIR that she was threatened that the videos would be made viral and was raped many times thereafter; her statements were recorded by the police and the magistrate.
Story continues below this ad
As for the molestation case, the woman alleged that the accused officer shared the videos and photographs with his cousin who sought sexual favours from her but she refused.
She further alleged that the accused officer even shared the indecent content with her husband and family members.
The victim’s husband, in his statement, claimed to have received the said videos and photographs but failed to produce them, stating he had deleted them. The woman’s father, however, denied having received them.
On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioners submitted mobile chats, attached with the application, showing it was the victim who allegedly pressured the accused to enter into a relationship. He also argued that in one statement, she alleged rape and in other, she claimed she drank water laced with sedatives and fell unconscious.
Story continues below this ad
Delay in lodging FIR: Why the court flagged this
After submissions by the counsel, the court observed that the victim had no explanation for the extraordinary delay in filing the complaint. “In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings,” the court observed.
The court further observed, “While inordinate delay in itself may not be grounds for quashing a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.”
In its order, the court stated, “… Despite the video sent to the family members and husband of the victim, the FIR was lodged with delay. The victim is an educated married lady and when subjected to rape, why she has not reported the rape soon thereafter or intimated her husband. Subsequent fact is that she was subjected to rape on specific dates in [a] hotel three times in… 2022 and once in… November 2023. There was ample time to report the incident, but she was subjected to blackmail for the video or photo which she had not seen.”
“This is hard to believe that a married woman was consistently [subjected] to sexual intercourse at the hotel under fear that her video [would] be made viral by the accused, who himself is a public servant,” the bench of Justice Saxena observed further.
Story continues below this ad
Cites SC order
The bench also quoted a Supreme Court order, which stated “while considering the sexual intercourse between the parties for a long period as forceful sexual act, found that it is inconceivable that the parties could maintain a prolonged physical relations in absence of voluntary consent”.
The bench then observed in the present case, “… It is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the appellant or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.”
“The record is silent about the transfer of any indecent video or photographs of the victim either to her husband or to family members. There is no CCTV footage of the hotel. All these facts show that the victim is a consenting party, whose consent has neither been obtained [through] fear of death of her children nor [by] blackmailing her with indecent video and photographs,” the court stated in the order.
“… it would be appropriate to mention that the accused applicant has annexed WhatsApp [chats]… these chats, on the face of it, reveal intimate communications other than guidance for study,” the bench observed.
Story continues below this ad
The court then quashed the two chargesheets, order taking cognizance and the entire proceedings of the two cases against the two accused.
