The Bombay High Court recently granted relief to a public servant, by quashing an FIR that charged him with the rape of a minor. The court held, “The man cannot be made to suffer the agony of prosecution on the basis of an omnibus allegation.”
A Division Bench of Justices Ranjit More and N.J. Jamadar was hearing a plea filed by Umesh Pawar seeking to quash the FIR against him under Sections 363 (punishment for kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc), 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault), 4 (punishment for penetrative sexual assualt), 17 (punishment for abetment) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
On July 17, 2017, the teenager had left home on the pretext of attending college but did not return home. Following a search, it appeared she was kidnapped. The following day, the legal guardian, Mr. Pawar, initially registered a complaint against an unknown person alleging that his niece, who was then 17 years and 11 months old, was kidnapped. One Anand, Mr. Pawar’s cousin, was also missing at the same time.
On August 18, 2017, the girl was traced and said she was having an affair with Anand, who had promised her marriage.
Mr. Pawar was alleged to have advised Anand to elope and assisted in solemnising the victim’s marriage. Anand had physical relations with the girl, on the basis of which, Mr. Pawar was implicated in the case.
The advocate appearing for Mr. Pawar said he has been implicated as he holds a responsible position in the Revenue Department and is facing unwarranted prosecution. The advocate also said by the time the girl was married, the couple were both adults.
After hearing senior advocate Mihir Desai, who was appointed as the amicus curae , the court recorded “a prima facie view… that there was every chance that the victim was not a minor at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.” The birth certificate reveals that the victim had completed 18 years of age on the date of the alleged commission of the offence, the court said.
Quashing the FIR, the Bench said, “We are of the considered opinion that Mr. Pawar herein cannot be made to suffer the agony of prosecution on the basis of the omnibus allegation that he had advised his cousin to elope with the victim and rendered assistance in solemnising the marriage in a temple. The continuation of the prosecution would, thus, be an abuse of the process of the court and would perpetuate injustice.”
