Bali in October. Egypt the following September.Two colleagues from the same workplace, years of acquaintance, and an association that travelled continents before landing in a courtroom.On these admitted facts, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found that a rape case registered in Gurugram did not travel far enough to constitute the offence.The court ruled that the ingredients of the offences were “completely missing” in the peculiar circumstances.“The present petition succeeds and the FIR registered in May 2024, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, registered at women police station, Sector-51, Gurugram, the final report and all consequential proceedings arising out therefrom are set aside by this Court qua the petitioner”.At the onset, Justice NS Shekhawat asserted admittedly the complainant was already married and not having cordial relations with her husband. Her own stand in the matter was that she went into litigation with her husband in May, 2016 –– proceedings which finally culminated into a decree for divorce in October 2023.“Thus, when the respondent-complainant first met the petitioner-accused in February 2022, she was married to another person and was having a status of married lady. Consequently, it is highly improbable that the petitioner had proposed her for marriage. In fact, in February/March 2022, she herself was not even competent to get married to the petitioner. Still further, the petitioner-accused as well as respondent-complainant were working in the same company for the last several years and apparently, knew each other,” Justice Shekhawat observed.The Bench added the complainant went to Bali with the petitioner from October 9, 2022, to October 17, 2022, even before taking divorce. Both visited various places and stayed together in the same hotel at different hill stations. She also visited Egypt from September 16, 2023, to September 27, 2023, with the petitioner and “admittedly had physical relations”.  But she did not lodge the FIR for several months, even though she was highly educated and working in a multinational company.“Even, from the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner and respondent had developed friendly relations and were on visiting terms with each other. Even, this Court cannot be made to believe that the prosecutrix, who was highly qualified and grown up lady, was unable to discover the deceitful/forceful behaviour of the petitioner, who continued to have sexual relationship with her for such a long period,” Justice Shekhawat observed.The court added it could be easily inferred that the two initially developed friendship and later physical relations also.“Consequently, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC are completely missing in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,” Justice Shekhawat added.