Bombay High Court refuses to discharge rape accused who cited astrological incompatibility to go back on marriage promise

The Bombay High Court recently refused to discharge a man accused of rape and cheating after he cited astrological incompatibility as an excuse to renege on his promise to marry the complainant woman with whom he was in a relationship (Avishek Mitra v. State of Maharashtra)..The applicant, Avishek Mitra, had moved the High Court after a Mumbai Sessions Court had refused to discharge him from the case arising from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on the basis of a complaint made by the woman.His contention was that the relations between the applicant and complainant could not be taken further due to “astrological incompatibility.”.Refusing to allow the application, Justice Sandeep Shinde made a prima facie observation that "the applicant prevailed over the complainant to withdraw her first complaint by promising that he would marry her"..The Court found it apparent that the applicant, under the guise of "astrological incompatibility of horoscopes," avoided the promise. .According to the complainant, the two knew each other since 2012 as they were in the same workplace. She alleged that the applicant exploited her emotionally to have a physical relationship under the pretext of false marriage. She also claimed to have aborted her child conceived with the applicant, when he assured her of marrying her after two years. When the applicant started avoiding her, she lodged a police complaint. .The Assistant Commissioner of Police referred the two for counselling. During the counselling session, the applicant had assured her of marriage and in view of that, the complaint was withdrawn. But to the complainant's surprise, the applicant wrote to the counsellor, withdrawing his intention to marriage. Subsequently, the complainant filed a fresh complaint with the police, after which a chargesheet came to filed..Justice Shinde observed that the intentions of the applicant were neither bonafide nor true. "Had the intentions been bonafide and true, the applicant would not have addressed a letter to the counsellor and resiled from his promise to marry the complainant,” the order states. “There is sufficient material to suggest that since inception, the applicant had no intention of upholding his promise to marry the complainant,” Justice Shinde said..[Read Order]