The Bombay High Court recently allowed a son from Kerala, Binoy Kodiyeri. Communist Party of India (Marxist) Secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, accompanied by the woman who accused him of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation, to “consider the implications of the terms of consent”.
While hearing Binoy’s petition. demand to cancel FIR Against her, the court granted her request after it was informed that while the terms of consent were agreed upon the amount of compensation to be paid to the woman by the codiery, she was ready to accept the child born to the woman. was not. The bench adjourned the hearing on his plea and directed both the parties to reach an agreement on the pending issues.
A division bench of Justice Nitin M Jamdar and Justice NR Borkar was hearing a plea by Binoy Kodiyeri to quash the FIR against him. A 32-year-old victim, a former employee of a dance bar in Mumbai, had alleged that Binoy sexually assaulted and raped her by promising to marry her, claiming that they had a child together.
In her complaint to the Oshiwara police on June 13, 2019, the victim stated that she was not aware that Binoy was already married and it was not so until recently when she saw her. Facebook Photos with his wife that he came to know.
The woman had claimed that she had come in contact with Binoy in Dubai in 2009 and had proposed marriage to her. Thereafter, she came to India and Kodiyeri paid the rent for the house she lived in and sent the money to her.
She said she gave birth to a son the next year, but Kodiyeri did not live up to her promise of marriage and when her name cropped up in a financial crime investigation, she learned that he was already married. When Binoy refused to accept her and her son, he filed a complaint of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation against her.
Binoy approached the High Court claiming that he had been falsely implicated by the woman, following which the court ordered a DNA test.
In April this year, the court was informed that the contesting parties had reached a settlement as “better spirit prevails” over them and would submit the terms of consent. It was submitted that the parties were jointly requesting the Court to quash the proceedings of the complaint. The police counsel sought time to verify the factual aspects.
After the court was told that since the petitioner and the complainant are resolving the dispute amicably, if the charge sheet is filed, the entire attempt by the parties to approach the court to quash the FIR with consent is “disappointed”. Will happen. The HC found “some merit” in the submission and, as an interim direction, ordered the trial court not to frame charges against the petitioner till further orders.
When Binoy’s petition came up for hearing on June 29, the bench was informed that it would pay the amount to the woman but would not take any responsibility for the child, which was opposed by the complainant. The lawyers for the parties sought time to resolve the differences and consider the implications of the terms of consent, which the court accepted and scheduled further hearing on July 13.