MANOHAR SILAWAT S/O SUKHLAL SILAWAT Vs. The state of MP & oth. as on 9 June 2022 , MP HC

You are currently viewing MANOHAR SILAWAT S/O SUKHLAL SILAWAT  Vs. The state of MP & oth. as on 9 June 2022 , MP HC

Seems Vexatious & Frivolous Litigation: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Rape Case Against Husband

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently quashed the First Information Report and consequential proceedings initiated by a woman in 2019 over alleged rape by her husband in May 2001.

The bench of Justice Anand Pathak held that from the very perusal of contents of FIR, chargesheet and nature of allegations, no case for trial was made out.

Court said that it appeared to be vexatious and frivolous litigation just to exert pressure on the husband to extract money or an attempt made by the woman to convert domestic dispute into criminal allegations. 

“It would be miscarriage of justice if such false allegations are allowed to sustain and petitioner is unnecessarily dragged into litigation to defend himself,” Court observed.

The woman had filed the said FIR under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that her first husband died in 1999 leaving two children, after which her current husband (the accused) induced her to marry him so that he can maintain her children.

She claimed that with that inducement he brought her to Bajranggarh and without her consent committed rape upon her, as a result of which, she became pregnant and one child was born. Another child was born out of their relationship four years later, the woman stated in the FIR.

Challenging the allegations, the husband moved the high court stating that it was vexatious litigation just to harass him.

He contended that he and the woman both belong to Scheduled Caste and as per their customs, Natra (social customs like live-in/marriage) was performed and he started living with the woman along with his first wife (with her consent).

He said that he lived with both the wives and when he did not part his whole property in favour of the second wife, she filed the instant case.

Man’s counsel also filed written synopsis in which he annexed copy of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the woman against the man before Principal Judge, Family Court, in which she mentioned the fact that she married him on June 13, 2001 and they lived together till July 2019.

Taking note of the difference between woman’s submission before the Family Court and allegations leveled by her in the FIR, Court said that after a lapse of 18 years any allegation leveled by the woman paled into oblivion as they primarily appeared to be motivated to exert pressure.

Therefore, stating that the case appeared frivolous from the very contents of the FIR and attending circumstances, Court quashed the FIR and discharged the husband from all allegations.

Leave a Reply