Summary
Criminal procedure—Quashing of rape and intimidation proceedings alleging a false promise of marriage. On the particular record, the Court found material discrepancies between the FIR and the complainant’s judicial statement, an undisputed divorce decree contradicting her asserted divorce date, and a consensual relationship without an initial promise of marriage. Continuing the prosecution was held unwarranted; the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed.
Issues
- Whether the allegations of consent induced by a false promise of marriage warranted continuation of the prosecution on this record.
Provisions considered
- Sections 164 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court compared the FIR with the judicial statement and the undisputed divorce decree when exercising its power to quash proceedings. (¶ 6–10)
- Sections 375, 376(2)(n) and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860Applying Naim Ahamed to the particular circumstances, the Court rejected the alleged false-promise basis for rape and quashed the FIR, including the intimidation charge, without separately analysing Section 506. (¶ 8–10)
Held
- The FIR and Section 164 statement materially differed concerning the alleged marriage and relationship. The undisputed decree established that divorce occurred only on 13 January 2021, contradicting the claimed December 2018 divorce and alleged January 2019 remarriage. (¶ 6–7)
- The Court found no initial promise to marry when the relationship began and treated the relationship as consensual on the combined circumstances, including the complainant’s own account and the subsistence of her marriage. It applied Naim Ahamed to these particular facts in rejecting consent under misconception; the decision does not establish that marriage or a prior relationship alone negates an allegation of rape. (¶¶ 6.3, 8–9.1)
- The High Court’s refusal to quash was set aside. FIR No. 52 dated 11 December 2020 at Mahila Thana, District Satna, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, and all subsequent proceedings were quashed. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; FIR No. 52 dated 11 December 2020 and all subsequent proceedings quashed.