Rape case against T-Series owner Bhushan Kumar: Bombay HC says FIR cannot be quashed merely because of victim’s consent

Bhushan Kumar, the son of music baron late Gulshan Kumar, was booked for allegedly raping a woman repeatedly on the pretext of giving her a job in his music record label and film production company. The police lodged an FIR following a complaint filed by the 30-year-old woman, who alleged that Kumar sexually assaulted her several times between September 2017 and August 2022. She also claimed that Kumar threatened to harm her.

The bench observed that in the present case, the relationship between the accused and the victim did not seem consensual and that it would also have to examine if the crime was heinous or not.

Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, for Kumar, submitted that in July 2021, an FIR was registered against his client for alleged incidents since 2017. He told the bench that the police filed the B-summary report (closure report) before the concerned magistrate.

He added that one Mallikarjun Pujari had filed a protest petition before the magistrate against the B-summary report, claiming that he had helped the woman register the FIR. However, the woman had granted her consent to close the proceedings. Mundargi said the magistrate had rejected the B-summary report last year.

The bench perused the material on record and observed that while refusing the closure report, the magistrate had opined that the woman had first set the criminal law in motion, and after accepting the closure report, she gave an assurance that she had misused the provisions for “personal gain and advantage”.

The bench noted that the magistrate failed to record the victim’s statement under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

“Contents of (consent) affidavit is not sufficient to quash FIR. Generally under section 376, FIR can be quashed with consent of the complainant. But then that is after the FIR or the affidavit shows that there is a consensual relationship. Here the complainant is only saying she doesn’t want to proceed with the case due to ‘circumstantial misunderstanding’,” the bench noted.

The court also observed that the probe report submitted by the police contained factual discrepancies and therefore expressed their disinclination to quash the FIR. After Mundargi urged the court to reconsider the plea, the bench “as a matter of last chance” adjourned the matter to July 2.