Ahmedabad: In a relief for a doctor, Gujarat High Court has quashed a rape FIR filed against him by his former employee, with whom he was having an affair. The complaint was filed by the 28-year-old employee in July 2024 after the doctor’s wife accused her and another employee of Rs 3.2 crore fraud.The doctor, who runs a hospital in Vyara town of Tapi district, was accused of rape, molestation and unnatural sex. He was facing trial after police filed a chargesheet. He approached the high court, seeking the quashing of the case and submitted that police investigation had indicated a consensual relationship and that the criminal case appeared to be a retaliatory action in response to a fraud complaint filed against the woman by his wife.The employee accused the doctor of forcing her into a relationship from Jan 2021, which the doctor denied. His counsel argued that the FIR was filed after a significant delay and was a counterblast to the fraud FIR. The doctor relied on chat screenshots and photographs to contend the relationship was consensual.Opposing the plea, the state and the complainant argued that the allegations disclosed cognisable offences and that consent, if any, was under duress given the doctor’s position as hospital owner, and should be tested at trial.After the hearing, Justice M R Mengdey noted that the complainant never raised any alarm since 2021 about the alleged incident. On a perusal of the chats between the two parties, the court noted that the doctor regularly sent lewd and sexually coloured messages to her. She never objected to them. “On the contrary, the perusal of the messages would indicate that the first informant had also replied to some of those messages sent by the petitioner in the very same tone and colour,” HC said.The court further noted, “The material available on record would also indicate that the petitioner regularly used to call the first informant to a particular room of the hospital and the first informant used to go to the said room. These aspects are indicative of the fact that the petitioner and the first informant were having an affair, and the first informant, who was an educated lady, aged about 28 years, had entered into the relations with the petitioner on her own volition. Therefore, it cannot be said that, whatever had happened between the two, was without her consent. (sic)”
