ABSTRACT

A petition for quashing the FIR dt. 20.03.2013, P.S. FIR No. 04/2013 in the Honourable Madras High
Court was filed on behalf of the accused Dhinakaran, Vallaimmai and Mahendran. The incident that
occurred has a strong case and the trial would show that the accused are guilty. Thus, I would like to
file a counter petition against the quash petition filed by the learned counsel Amoolya Vinjamur.

FACTS
Saranya was a nineteen year old girl from Ninniyur villagae, Tamil Nadu. Saranya and
Dhinakaran s/o Subramaniam were involved in a romantic relationship. They conversed
through phones over the course of a few months and everyone in the village was aware of the
existence of such a relationship between the two of them.
On 10.12.2012 at about 11:30 pm when Saranya was a home, Dhinakaran came there and
took her to the backyard of her house and attempted to gain carnal knowledge of her. When
Saranya resisted, he promised that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her.
After the incident, Dhinakaran slowly stopped speaking to Saranya. She complained to her
cousin, Natarajan and told him about the events that took place.
On 17.02.2013, at around 8:00 pm in the night; Saranya, her father and her cousin went to
Dhinakarans house and question him about his refusal to marry Saranya. Dhinkaran, his
mother Valliamai and friend Mehendran used highly profane language against Saranya and
even threatened to kill her and her father.
Aggrieved by the rejection and refusal, Saranya lodged a complaint with the All Woman
Police, Ariyalur on 18.02.2013

GROUNDS
1. The counsel humbly submits that the accused, Dhinakaran had sexual intercourse with
Saranya through false promise of marriage. According to the Deep Gulati Vs. State
of Haryana case, the Supreme Court held that theat sex based on the false promise of
marriage can be rape in certain situations.

2. The lack of wounds on the prosecutrix are justified as she did not resist the advances
of accused under the false promise of marriage.

3. The counsel further submits that that no statute of limitations of rape exists in India
and therefore, the argument of the opposing counsel that the two month delay
invalidates the case, is null and void.