SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Vikas Bhushan - Appellant
Versus
State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 831 of 2022)
Decided On : 16-01-2024
Leave granted - Criminal Revision - The court quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the first informant's disinterest in prosecuting the matter further.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging non-consensual physical relationship with the accused, who later informed her that he did not intend to marry her. The first informant, now married, expressed disinterest in prosecuting the proceedings further.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment and order, as well as all proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR.
Issues: Consent in physical relationship, disinterest of the first informant in prosecuting the proceedings further.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the disinterest of the first informant in continuing the proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and all proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR were quashed and set aside.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal challenges the order dated 13th December, 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 301 of 2021, whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC-01), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi rejecting the application filed by the present appellant for discharge.
2. A complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix to the effect that she had come to Delhi for preparation of competitive exam, where she came in contact with the accused.
3. It is alleged that in October, 2015, the accused expressed interest in establishing a physical relationship with her. It is stated that she initially refused to it, but thereafter under the promise that the appellant has the intention to marry her, she entered into sexual relationship with him.
4. However, subsequently in 2019, the brother of the accused informed the complainant that the accused did not have the intention to marry her.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the complaint made by the first informant itself would reveal that the physical relations were consensual and were continuing for number of years also. He, therefore, submits that the case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code would not be made out.
6. He, however, submits that now even the first informant is not interested in prosecuting the matter further.
7. It is stated in the affidavit dated 07th October, 2023 filed by the first informant that she has now married and leading a peaceful marital life with her husband. It is, therefore, stated that in order to lead her life peacefully, she is not interested in prosecuting the present proceedings.
8. Ordinarily, in the given set of facts and circumstances, we would not have entertained such a petition. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly that continuation of the criminal proceedings would prejudice the interest of the first informant herself, inasmuch she would be compelled to attend the proceedings which she does not want to wish to proceed further, we are inclined to exercise of our extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to give an end to the criminal proceedings.
9. The appeal is thus allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 13th December, 2021 is quashed and set aside.
10. All the proceedings initiated pursuant to the FIR No. 265 of 2020 dated 07th July, 2020 registered at Police Station Ranjit Nagar, Delhi under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed and set aside.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
The court held that consensual relationships cannot constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC without clear evidence of misconception or coercion.
The distinction between consensual sexual relations and rape based on a breach of promise to marry was established, emphasizing that consent obtained under a misconception does not automatically inva....
A redundant criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of unequivocal voluntary agreement in the victim's consent, the absence of fear or misconception, and the impact of the promise ....
Consent vitiated by deception negates the validity of consent in sexual offences, allowing for charges of rape to proceed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.