“Consensual Relationship”: Bombay HC Quashes Case Against Doctor; Imposes 5 Lakh Penalty

After the victim gave her assent, the Bombay High Court dismissed the rape case against a city doctor and ordered that he would have to pay INR 5 lakh to an advocacy group.

The court stated that there was enough evidence to demonstrate the consensual nature of the relationship.

A bench of Justices PD Naik and NR Borkar was hearing the case. The bench said, “The material on record would indicate that the victim was in the company of the accused. She volunteered to do so. The relationship was apparently consensual.”

The Bandra doctor had filed with the High Court for the case to be dropped by consent.

On May 24 of last year, the woman filed a complaint against the doctor with the Khar police. She claimed that on May 21, she went to a hotel with the doctor, and they both drank alcohol. Then, she claimed, he assaulted her sexually.

The session court granted pre-arrest bail to the doctor. In this case, the police have also filed a chargesheet.

According to his argument, the parties had a misunderstanding that has been cleared up, and the complaint’s permission may be obtained to cease the proceedings. Additionally, the woman submitted an affidavit declaring that she had no objection to the proceedings being quashed. 

“The victim intends to move ahead in life. The pendency of proceedings would be disturbing her peace,” the Bombay HC said.

The court took note of the hospital report of the alcohol test. The report was negative. The court also saw the photographs, which are part of the charge sheet. They were about the presence of the victim and accused in the hotel premises where the alleged incident had occurred, indicating that both were enjoying their company.

The judges also took into consideration the testimony of the complainant’s friend, who had gone with the doctor. “She departed from their company. The victim chose to go with the accused instead of joining her. She also refers to a chat she had with the victim, insinuating that the victim was not willing to go back home. The victim intended to give an excuse for being out by alibi,” the court underlined.