Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a prosecution for rape under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the complainant's own First Information Statement and police statement showed a relationship between two adult close relatives, disclosed no promise of marriage preceding the first act of intercourse, and made mutually destructive allegations of coercion and induced consent; letting the trial continue would be an abuse of process.
Issues
- Whether the First Information Statement and the victim's statement to the police disclose the ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC, in particular consent vitiated by a promise of marriage.
- Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The Court held that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court and that this was precisely a case in which the High Court should have exercised its inherent and extraordinary power to quash; it quashed the Sessions case itself. (¶¶ 2, 13)
- Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court examined whether the First Information Statement and the later police statement, which were identical, disclosed the ingredients of the offence; unless they did, the prosecution could not continue. It found no inducement by a promise of marriage before the sexual act and found the allegation of forcible intercourse unbelievable. (¶¶ 7, 8, 11, 12)
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Counsel for the complainant argued that consent obtained on a promise of marriage was consent given under a misconception within Section 90. The Court found that no promise preceded the first act of intercourse and that the victim's own case was coercion rather than consent, so there was no inducement on which a misconception of fact could rest. (¶¶ 5, 8, 11)
Held
- A prosecution for rape cannot continue unless the ingredients of Section 376 IPC emerge from the First Information Statement and the statement of the victim recorded by the police, which together form the basis of the trial; the Court read both and found them identical. (¶ 7)
- On the victim's own account, the accused's proposal of marriage was made before the relationship began but was not accepted by her, and the promise said to have been made by the accused came only after the first act of intercourse; there was therefore no inducement by a promise of marriage leading to the sexual act. (¶¶ 8, 11)
- An allegation that the accused refused to discuss marriage until intercourse took place and then forced himself on the victim, coupled with a plea of consent induced by a promise of marriage, is mutually destructive: if there was consent there cannot be forcible intercourse, and if intercourse was under threat and coercion there is no consent on which an inducement could operate. (¶¶ 9, 11)
- The allegation of intercourse under threat and coercion on three occasions was not believable, given the admitted relationship between the parties, who were close relatives, and the victim's willing and repeated visits to the same hotel room even after she claimed to have been mentally upset by the earlier incidents. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Following Prithvirajan v. State, where the record shows a consensual relationship and no promise that was false from the beginning, letting the accused face trial is an abuse of the process of the court; the High Court should have interfered under Section 482 CrPC. (¶¶ 7, 13)
Result
Appeal allowed; the order of the High Court rejecting the Section 482 CrPC application set aside; proceedings in S.C. No. 49 of 2022 before the Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Erode quashed; pending applications disposed of.