Summary
The appellant sought quashing of an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging repeated sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage and refusal to marry on caste grounds. The High Court had only directed that no coercive steps be taken. The Supreme Court quashed both this FIR and the complainant's earlier FIR for cheating: the two FIRs over the same subject matter were irreconcilably contradictory, the later FIR alleged incidents pre-dating the earlier one that had gone unmentioned, undisputed chats showed the complainant's manipulative intent, and the caste allegation was an afterthought.
Issues
- Whether the FIR alleging rape under a false promise of marriage and an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act disclosed prima facie material or deserved to be quashed as an abuse of process.
- Whether inconsistencies between two FIRs lodged by the same complainant over the same subject matter, and undisputed material produced by the accused, could be considered at the quashing stage.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court had declined quashing and merely directed that the investigation be completed without coercive steps. The Supreme Court found no material, let alone prima facie material, for the allegations and held that continuing the prosecution would be a travesty of justice and an abuse of the process of court, quashing both FIRs and all consequential proceedings. (¶¶ 4, 10, 22, 30, 31)
- Section 376(2)(n), Indian Penal Code, 1860The allegation of repeated forcible sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage was held unsubstantiated: even assuming the appellant retracted from his promise to marry, it could not be said that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant under a false promise of marriage. (¶¶ 9, 22, 23, 28)
- Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The allegation that the appellant refused to marry the complainant because of her caste was absent from her earlier FIR and surfaced only in the FIR lodged about seven months later; the Court treated it as a sheer exaggeration to be discarded and held that the offence could not be said to have been committed on the ground that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe. (¶¶ 9, 28, 29)
Held
- On the FIR and the chargesheet there was no material, let alone prima facie material, to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage. The allegations in the complainant's first FIR for cheating and in the later FIR for rape were at great variance, and the inherent contradictions between the two reports over the same subject matter could not be reconciled. (¶ 22)
- Where the complainant, a highly educated woman aged 30, alleged only a single sexual encounter in her first FIR, and in a second FIR lodged about seven months later alleged four or five incidents each of which pre-dated the first FIR, it was inherently improbable that she would have forgotten or omitted those incidents when lodging the earlier FIR. (¶¶ 13, 23)
- The closure report in the first FIR showed that the complainant had earlier lodged a similar complaint of cheating and sexual exploitation on a false promise of marriage against another person. Chats placed on record, whose genuineness the State did not dispute, showed the complainant admitting that she was manipulative, was using the appellant and intended to move on to the next victim; they depicted a manipulative and vindictive tendency, and the appellant was justified in backing out of the proposed marriage. (¶¶ 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27)
- Even assuming the appellant retracted from his promise to marry, it could not be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage or that any offence was committed on the ground that the complainant belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe; the caste allegation, absent from the first FIR, was a sheer exaggeration that had to be discarded. (¶¶ 28, 29)
- Allowing the prosecution to continue on an FIR consisting of fabricated, malicious and unsubstantiated allegations would be a travesty of justice and a gross abuse of the process of court; the complainant's vindictive and manipulative tendencies had a great bearing on the controversy. Both FIRs and all consequential proceedings were quashed. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; FIR Crime No. 103 of 2022, FIR Crime No. 751 of 2021 and all consequential proceedings quashed in entirety; pending applications disposed of.