Rape Case Filed by Second Wife After 18 years Dismissed by MP HC as Frivolous

Madhya Pradesh high court Law Insider

Paridhi Arya

Published on June 13, 2022 at 13:25 IST

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anand Pathak quashed the complaint of rape filed against Petitioner by his second wife after 18 years.

The Court observed that her complaint was vexatious and frivolous which was filed to harass the Petitioner so he will pay money.

The Petitioner (husband) filed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the complaint filed by Complainant. The Petitioner was charged under Section 376 and 506 of IPC.

The Complainant claimed that on May 2001 the Petitioner raped her and from then on, he used to pay her and had a physical relation with her. They together have a son.

The Petitioner threatened her that the consequences will be bad if she would tell anyone about the incident.

The Counsel representing the Petitioner argued that both the parties belong to the same tribe where with the permission of first wife the husband can keep a relation like live-in or marriage with the second wife.

The dispute arose between the Parties when Petitioner denied giving whole of his property to his second wife.

The Court observed that the Complainant approached the Court after 18 years of incident and now when her son is approximately 20 years old.

The Court found the allegation false and miscarriage of justice if allowed. Court while concluding quashed the complaint.

“When a petitioner and prosecutrix tricks live together as a couple for 18 long years then after such a lapse of time any allegation level against by prosecutors fails into Oblivion because they are primarily motivated into exert pressure. Not only this, perusal of application under section 125 of CrPC filed at the instance of respondent No. 2 further reveals that on the one hand she levelled the allegation that they lived in live in relationship but now she makes an application that they lived as a married couple such divergent stand can only be avail of in case of misrepresentation of facts” Court observed.

Related Post