The applicant, a retired 73-year-old, sought quashing of an FIR accusing him of rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation. The complainant alleged that Bhojwani had sexually assaulted her in 1987 and maintained a forced sexual relationship under the promise of marriage for 31 years. The High Court of Bombay, however, quashed the FIR, concluding that the relationship was consensual and the complainant's delay in filing the FIR was unjustifiable.

1. Introduction:

   • The case involves Lalchand Sirumal Bhojwani, who sought to quash an FIR accusing him of rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation filed by the complainant, Ms. XYZ, in 2018.

2. Facts of the Case:

   • The complainant alleged that Bhojwani sexually assaulted her in 1987 and maintained a sexual relationship with her for 31 years under the false promise of marriage.
   • She claimed that Bhojwani threatened to defame her if she complained and used the promise of marriage to keep her under his control.

3. Arguments by the Applicant:

   • Bhojwani argued that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant continued to willingly engage with him for 31 years without filing any complaint.
   • The FIR, he argued, was filed after their relationship soured and should be quashed due to the unjustifiable delay and the consensual nature of the relationship.

4. Arguments by the Complainant:

   • The complainant’s counsel argued that she was a victim of sexual abuse starting in 1987 when she was just 18 years old and lacked the courage to file a complaint earlier due to societal taboos and fear of losing her job.

5. Court’s Analysis:

   • The Court noted that the complainant was aware of Bhojwani's marital status and still believed in his promises of marriage. The delay in filing the FIR was found to be unexplained and unjustifiable.
   • The Court found that the relationship was consensual, and there was no evidence of coercion or force, as alleged by the complainant.

6. Judgment:

   • The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR against Bhojwani, citing the consensual nature of the relationship and the lack of any substantial evidence to support the charges of rape and cheating.
   • The Court also criticized the complainant's counsel for relying on an overturned High Court decision to support their case.

7. Conclusion:

   • The judgment highlights the importance of timely filing complaints and provides clarity on the distinction between consensual relationships and allegations of rape, particularly in long-standing relationships.