The significance of consent in cases of alleged rape and the distinction between false promises and breach of promises.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

1. By invoking provisions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), applicant herein is seeking quashment of crime bearing no. 63 of 2020 registered at City Police Station Shirpur, along with consequential charge-sheet bearing no. 30 of 2020 giving rise to Sessions Case No. 57 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

Respondent No.2 herein approached the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur by invoking powers under section 156(3) by way of private complaint no. 231 of 2020.

The sum and substance of private complaint is that respondent no.2 (complainant herein) joined as a teacher in R.C. Patel English Medium School, Holnathe, Shirpur since 1st November 2017. In the same year, accused too joined as a ‘Computer Teacher’ in the same school since such date. Complainant alleged that she had two children. According to her, accused promised to marry her and also to take all her responsibilities. She accepted the proposal. However, without fulfilling the promise of marriage, time to time on false assurance of marriage, applicant forcibly maintained physical relations with her. According to her, time and again, accused also borrowed amount on the pretext of financial difficulties. She has alleged that, as the love affair between them was known to all and as their relations would have ill effect on her both children, accused forced her to go and stay at Nandurbar. Further according to her, because of the physical relations with applicant, she had conceived and she alleges that accused forced her to get aborted. In February 2020, she learnt that accused got married and therefore she filed private complaint.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after following the initial procedure, directed City Police, Shirpur to register crime i.e. by invoking powers under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., as a result of which, crime bearing No.63 of 2020 came to be registered and investigation was undertaken and after its completion, charge-sheet was filed and it further culminated into sessions case.

4. In the above backdrop, accused-applicant has knocked the doors of this court praying for quashing of FIR and charge-sheet by invoking provisions under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Before undertaking the exercise of analysing the case on merits, it would be desirable to give a brief account of the settled legal position on the scope and object of provision of under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

By umpteen judgments the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court; firstly, to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C., secondly, to prevent abuse of process of court and thirdly, to secure ends of justice.

In the landmark case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1, it was observed as under :

“23. This Court in a number of cases has laid down the scope and ambit of courts’ powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Every High Court has inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”

(i) to give effect to an order under the Code;

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court, and

(iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

24. Inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statute.”

6. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case