Justice Anand Pathak of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently rejected a rape case against a man filed at the request of his’second wife,’ noting that it was a frivolous case and that her version indicated false claims against the man.
The court stated that the lawsuit was vexatious and frivolous litigation brought by the prosecutrix to put pressure on the man in order to extract money.
The prosecutrix filed an FIR against Manohar Silawat (Applicant/Petitioner), 55, saying that she was raped by him in May 2001, as a consequence of which she became pregnant, and one child was born as a result of this relationship.
It was also claimed that he had a continual intimate relationship with her after that, and that he called her for inconsistent payments toward her support amount, raped her, and threatened her with terrible repercussions.
It was observed that both the complainant and the petitioner belong to the Scheduled Caste, and according to their customs, Natra (social customs such as live-in/marriage) was done between them with their consent. It was his additional position that when, despite the prosecutrix’s instance, the petitioner did not divide his entire property in favour of the prosecutrix, then these false claims were levelled against him.
The Counsel also referred to an application filed by the complainant/alleged victim before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance from the petitioner, alleging that she is his wife and that he removed her from his family household in July 2019.
The court stated that allowing such false claims to stand and dragging the petitioner into litigation to defend himself would be a miscarriage of justice.
The Court noted that the prosecutrix had lived with the petitioner for 18 years and had given birth to a son named Harsh (now almost 20 years old), and that she had submitted a complaint on which a case was filed against the petitioner.
“When petitioner and prosecutrix lived together as a couple for 18 long years then after such lapse of time any allegation levelled by the prosecutrix pales into oblivion because they are primarily motivated to exert pressure. Perusal of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 further reveals that on one hand she levelled the allegations that they lived in live-in relationship but now she makes an application that they lived as married couple. Such divergent stand can only be availed of in case of misinterpretation of facts.”
Accordingly the FIR and the entire criminal proceedings was quashed by the court.
Case Title: Manohar Silawat VS The State of Madhya Pradesh