LI Network
Published on: 2 August 2023 at 14:40 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently made a significant observation, stating that genuine cases of sexual offences have become the exception, with the prevailing trend predominantly involving false allegations of rape [Vivek Kumar Maurya v State & Ors].
The Court also noted that a considerable number of cases were emerging where girls and women falsely filed First Information Reports (FIRs) after engaging in prolonged physical relationships with the accused, aiming to gain undue advantage.
Justice Siddharth, a single-judge bench, remarked that the law is heavily biased against men, prompting the courts to exercise caution when dealing with bail applications in such matters. The Court highlighted the ease with which wild allegations can be made in an FIR, leading to the unwarranted implication of individuals, as evident in the present case.
The Court recognized the role of social media, movies, and television shows in promoting an “openness culture” among young boys and girls. However, it cautioned that when such behavior clashes with Indian societal and family values, it sometimes leads to the filing of false cases.
Instances of false FIRs arise not only from live-in relationships but also from disputes that occur when partners realize their relationship cannot continue. The Court observed that girls/women often have an upper hand in the protection of the law, making it easier for them to implicate boys or men in such cases.
In the case before the Court, the accused faced charges of rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). He sought bail from the High Court.
The prosecution alleged that the accused had engaged in sexual relations with a minor girl on several occasions and later married her for sexual enjoyment. The accused also compelled the girl to have a physical relationship with his cousin, and when she objected, both the accused and his cousin abused and beat her.
The defence argued that the survivor was a major and had willingly entered into a relationship with the applicant for the past year. They stated that she left her house of her own accord and engaged in a physical relationship with the applicant with consent. The couple got married, but she was later taken away by her parents against her wishes, leading to the filing of the FIR.
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding that the FIR seemed to be based on false allegations and incorrect facts. The Court noted that the marriage between the prosecutrix and the applicant was officially registered, and there was no evidence of divorce or judicial separation through a court.
The Court expressed concern over the filing of FIRs through written applications prepared by experts or clerks at the police station. This practice poses a risk of false implication, as seen in the present case. The Court acknowledged the challenges faced by district-level courts in granting bail in such serious cases due to the fear of disciplinary proceedings by higher courts.
The Court concluded that the prosecutrix’s elopement and court marriage indicated her continuous consent, undermining the prosecution’s entire case. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
The applicant was represented by Advocate Om Narayan Pandey, and Advocate Lakshman Tripathi appeared for the State.