Summary
The Court upheld quashing of the criminal proceedings on the particular complaint and investigation materials. It found no factual basis that the marriage promise was false when made or directly induced the sexual relationship, and noted a fundamental change in the alleged abortion account contradicted by the named hospital’s doctor. The complainant was an adult when the alleged first sexual incident occurred. Applying the face-value quashing standard, the Court dismissed her appeal against the High Court order.
Issues
- Whether the alleged promise of marriage disclosed deception vitiating consent.
- Whether the complaint, revised account and prosecution materials supplied sufficient grounds to proceed.
- Whether the High Court’s quashing order warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court applied Bhajan Lal categories (1), (3) and (5), holding that the allegations and prosecution materials on their face did not supply sufficient grounds to continue the proceedings. (¶¶ 2, 17, 18, 19)
- Sections 375 and 376(2)(n); promise-to-marry consent analysis, Indian Penal Code, 1860A promise must be false in bad faith from inception, with a direct link to the decision to engage in the act. The Court found those elements absent from this FIR and revised statement. (¶¶ 3.5, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16)
Held
- For a marriage promise to vitiate consent through misconception of fact, it must have been made in bad faith without an intention to fulfil it at the outset, and the false promise must directly bear on the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act. A later failure to marry does not by itself establish these elements. (¶¶ 11, 12, 15)
- On its reading of the complaint and restatement, the Court found no face-value indication of such an initially false promise or its causal role in the relationship. Although the parties became acquainted earlier, the alleged first sexual incident was in 2019, when the complainant was over 18. These were the Court’s conclusions on the particular record, rather than a rule that a prior relationship establishes consent to every act. (¶¶ 13, 15, 18)
- The initial account alleged a hospital abortion, but the doctor denied treating or knowing the parties and stated that the hospital admitted no patients during the relevant lockdown period. The complainant’s revised account instead referred to medicine administered outside that hospital. The Court regarded this fundamental change and the prosecution materials as significant in assessing whether proceedings could continue. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 14, 15)
- Quashing powers are exercised sparingly, without a trial of the truth or reliability of allegations. The Court nevertheless held that, even accepting the complaint and supporting prosecution materials at face value, the case fell within Bhajan Lal categories concerning absence of an offence or sufficient foundation and inherent improbability. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The High Court had quashed the entire proceedings against all accused, including the charged IPC and SC/ST Act offences. The Supreme Court found no basis to interfere and dismissed the complainant’s appeal; it did not separately formulate a substantive interpretation of each SC/ST Act provision. (¶¶ 2, 3.5, 3.7, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed. High Court order quashing the entire proceedings in Special Case (SC/ST) No.1 of 2021 against the accused left intact; pending applications disposed of.