Summary
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and chargesheet against the appellant after finding that the allegations, even accepted as stated, disclosed a consensual relationship rather than rape induced by misconception. The complainant described a conscious decision to live with him for companionship. The Court distinguished breach of a marriage promise from an initially deceptive promise and found no pleaded foundation for the cheating or caste-atrocity allegations either.
Issues
- Whether the complaint disclosed rape through consent vitiated by a marriage promise.
- Whether the stated allegations supported the other charged offences.
- Whether quashing was warranted without weighing disputed evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Although exercised sparingly and without evidentiary reappraisal, inherent power permitted quashing where the allegations accepted in full did not constitute the charged offences. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23)
- Section 90, consent under fear or misconception, Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent required consideration of the circumstances and whether the accused knew or had reason to believe it resulted from fear or misconception. On the complaint’s own account, the relationship here did not satisfy that vitiating basis. (¶¶ 15, 20, 21)
Held
- A failure to fulfil a genuine promise to marry must be distinguished from a promise made with an initially deceptive purpose. Consent and the causal role of any misconception must be examined in the particular circumstances. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 20)
- The complainant described love, companionship and a conscious decision to live together. Taking her allegations at face value, the Court found neither forced intercourse nor consent resulting from the alleged misconception, so the rape charge was not disclosed. (¶ 21)
- The FIR also failed to spell out conduct constituting cheating or the charged offence under the SC/ST Act. The High Court’s refusal to quash was therefore unjustified. (¶ 22)
- The High Court order was set aside, and the FIR and chargesheet were quashed as against this appellant. (¶ 23)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order set aside; FIR dated 6 December 2000 and chargesheet dated 14 June 2001 quashed against the appellant.