Summary
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR, chargesheet and pending trial under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC, holding that the allegations taken at face value showed a consensual relationship between two educated adults that did not end in marriage; there was no promise of marriage at the outset and no real threat, so continuing the prosecution would abuse the process of law.
Issues
- Whether, taking the FIR, the Section 164 CrPC statement and the chargesheet at face value, the ingredients of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC were made out.
- Whether an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503 read with Section 506 IPC was disclosed.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Applying the Bhajan Lal parameters (no offence on the face of the allegations; proceedings instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive), the Court held the case fit for quashing to prevent abuse of process and faulted the High Court for refusing to exercise the power. (¶¶ 11, 21, 23)
- Section 376(2)(n), Indian Penal Code, 1860Read as quoted; the crucial ingredients of repeated rape on the same woman were absent because the relationship was consensual and no promise of marriage was made at its outset that induced the sexual relationship. (¶¶ 13, 15, 19, 21)
- Sections 503 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860Read as quoted; no threat with intent to cause alarm was disclosed where the parties had a cordial, consensual relationship and the complaint followed only the appellant's marriage. (¶¶ 14, 20, 21)
Held
- Where the complainant kept meeting the appellant over 2017 to 2019 at various places, maintained a prolonged physical relationship without complaint, and the parties had at one point intended to marry, the relationship was consensual between educated adults; the FIR appeared to have followed the appellant's marriage to another person. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Since neither the FIR nor the Section 164 CrPC statement indicated any promise of marriage at the outset of the relationship in 2017, it could not be said that the complainant entered into the sexual relationship solely on an assurance of marriage; the ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC were therefore absent. (¶ 19)
- A mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot found criminal proceedings; a consensual relationship does not become criminal because it does not culminate in marriage. With both parties now married to others, continuing the prosecution would be a gross abuse of process. (¶ 19)
- Consent vitiated by misconception of fact arising from a promise to marry requires that the promise be false, given in bad faith with no intention to keep it when made, and of direct relevance to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608; XXXX v. State of M.P., (2024) 3 SCC 496). (¶ 22)
- No offence of criminal intimidation was made out, as there was no threat in a relationship that was cordial throughout until the appellant married. (¶ 20)
- The High Court proceeded on the misconceived basis that the complainant had not consented, and erred in not exercising its Section 482 CrPC power on facts that were not in dispute. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order set aside and the Section 482 CrPC application allowed; FIR No. 272 of 2019, the chargesheet dated 22.11.2019 and the pending trial before the ASJ, Rohini quashed.