The Bombay High Court quashed a rape case against Mumbai-based lawyer observing that the allegations stemmed from a personal relationship that had soured.

The case involved the petitioner who faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after a woman filed a complaint. He and the complainant had been classmates at school and had lost touch over time. However, they reconnected in January 2020. At the time, the woman was married and living in the United States with her husband, but she returned to India with her child following marital discord. She decided to seek a divorce and reached out to him, as he was a lawyer.

A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande observed that the complainant had been married at the time she entered into a physical relationship with the accused and had done so of her own free will.

The Court pointed out that the case was not just about a relationship that had gone awry, but also involved financial issues between the parties. “If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it is unlikely to result in a conviction. Therefore, it would amount to an abuse of the legal process,” the Court stated while quashing the charges.

Advocate Satyavrat Joshi appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor SV Gavand appeared for the Respondent.

According to the complainant, during this vulnerable period, he took advantage of her emotional state and initiated an intimate relationship, which she sometimes felt was against her will. In his defense, he argued that the relationship was consensual.

He also noted financial transactions between them, including a transfer of ₹33 lakh to his account. He explained that ₹28 lakh of this was a loan, and ₹5 lakh was for legal services. He stated that the loan had been repaid by August 2022. He further claimed that after the loan repayment, the complainant demanded an additional ₹5 lakh and threatened to file a false rape complaint if he did not comply.

Upon reviewing the FIR and chargesheet, the Court found that the complainant’s allegations of rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC were not substantiated. The Bench observed, “From the complaint itself, it is evident that, the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2, being two consenting adults had indulged in a relationship, which is gone wrong and sour, as a result the respective parties have filed criminal proceedings against each other,”

The Court concluded that the complainant had willingly participated in the relationship and did not provide sufficient evidence of coercion or abuse.

As a result, the Court quashed the chargesheet, ruling that the case did not merit further legal proceedings.

Cause Title: Tapan Anant Thatte v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2024:BHC-AS:44567-DB]