DNA was the first to report how the accused and the victim had sought the quashing of the complaint stating it was causing a “hurdle in their relationship”.
It was a love tiff that took a detour to the court. Now, it’s happy tidings again for a couple locked in a legal battle. Nearly 18 months after a woman filed a rape complaint against her boyfriend, the Bombay high court has quashed her FIR, stating it was the result of a “misunderstanding” in the love affair.
The complainant and the accused have buried the hatchet and are happily married now.
The 19-year-old woman had lodged a complaint on June 6, 2008 against Suyog, alias Bunty Rathod, alleging rape. DNA was the first to report how the accused and the victim had sought the quashing of the complaint stating it was causing a “hurdle in their relationship”.
Her affidavit in August 2009 stated that she and Rathod had a “very good relation” and wanted to “maintain the same”. She claimed to be in love with Rathod and stated that if he is prosecuted, it will come in the way of their relationship.
The court, however, had expressed its desire to speak to both the complainant and the alleged rapist, who she later said never committed rape and wanted to marry her. As the couple stood in court waiting for the order on Tuesday, they had to face questions from justice SC Dharmadhikari.
In response to the judge’s query whether the girl’s allegations were true, Rathod answered in the affirmative. An exchange of smiles between the couple sealed the verdict in their favour.
“Although the offence alleged is punishable under section 376 (rape) of the IPC, the statement of the victim makes it clear that there was a love affair and a misunderstanding led to the FIR,” said justice Dharmadhikari.
Earlier, the advocates for the couple had informed the court that the two had tied the knot and the woman, a police constable-turned-housewife, was in the fifth month of pregnancy.
The court questioned the advocates if the wife had made any
complaints of harassment for dowry after marriage. They replied in the negative. “He should not give her the occasion to file another complaint. Summons from a court should be deterrent enough,” justice Dharmadhikari said.
The advocates assured the court that everything was hunky-dory with the couple as they stood at the back of court room 13 smiling coyly.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}