Bombay High Court Quashes Rape Case Against Thane Man Citing False Complaints
The Bombay High Court has quashed a 2019 rape case against a 30-year-old man from Thane, ruling that the complainant was a habitual offender who had filed multiple false cases against different men. Justice R R Bhonsale delivered the judgment in February, which was recently made available, after observing that the 34-year-old woman had a history of lodging baseless complaints.
According to the court order, the woman had filed a total of 10 First Information Reports (FIRs). Among these, at least four were criminal prosecutions under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for rape, featuring identical or similar allegations. She had also filed cruelty cases against two former husbands, and in another sexual assault case, the accused was acquitted.
The Thane-based accused had filed a petition to dismiss the FIR. The complainant had alleged that during a tour, the man proposed marriage within four days and forced himself on her on two occasions, including once abroad. She registered the case ten days later when he refused to marry her.
The petitioner's lawyer, Arjun Kadam, argued that the case was entirely fabricated. He highlighted that the woman was twice married and had previously filed cases against both husbands in another state.
The High Court noted that relations following a promise of marriage do not automatically constitute rape. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court stated that rape charges are only applicable if the promise to marry was made solely to obtain intimacy with no intention of fulfillment from the beginning.
Describing the situation as a "classic case of malafide and malicious misuse of the process of law for personal benefit," the court quashed the FIR. Justice Bhonsale directed the Maharashtra Director General of Police to distribute the woman’s details to all police stations across the state, advising officers to exercise caution if she attempts to file future rape complaints. The court also ordered the police to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering any future crimes reported by her.
Additional Public Prosecutor S V Walve represented the state during the hearings. Despite being served notice, the woman did not appear in court, and even a legally appointed aid lawyer remained absent. The court noted she refused to accept notices in person or through local police.
