1. Appeal seeking quashment of FIR registered under Sections 376 and 313, IPC, involving allegations of rape on false promise of marriage and causing miscarriage. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 937
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Lalu Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4222 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9371 of 2018
Decided On : 16-10-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devvrat, AOR Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Swati Setia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. S M Hashmi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devvrat, AOR Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Adv. Ms. Swati Setia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv. Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv. Mr. Avneesh Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Kumar, AOR Mr. S M Hashmi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Consensual sex between two adults is not rape.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376 and 313 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 64 and 89] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Marriage under compulsion and rape – Quashing petition – Complaint of respondent is that appellant had deceived her by promising to marry and then by establishing physical relationship – There is a huge irregularity between statements “established physical relationship with me without my consent” and “started living with me as husband” – High Court has palpably gone wrong in not considering question whether allegations in complaint reveals prima facie case that complainant had given her consent for sexual relationship with appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged, or whether it reveals a case of consensual sex – Allegations in FIR would not constitute a prima facie case of false promise to marry from inception with a view to establish sexual relationship and instead they would reveal a prima facie case of long consensual physical relationship during which complainant addressed appellant as her husband – She went along with appellant to Varanasi with knowledge of her family and stayed with him in hotels during such visits – Subsequent refusal to marry complainant would not be sufficient to accuse appellant guilty of having committed rape within meaning of Section 375, IPC – Impugned Order set aside and criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellant is facing rape charges. What survives for consideration is only question whether impugned order invites interference and subject FIR be quashed invoking inherent jurisdiction?
Findings of Court:
As allegation of offence under Section 313, IPC is omitted, there is absolutely no prima facie case for proceeding further against the appellant on allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 376, IPC. High Court should have exercised its inherent power.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks quashment of FIR; State and complainant justify the investigation based on the prima facie existence of a cognizable offence. (Para 2 , 6 , 10 )
3. Long-term consensual relationship where parties lived as husband and wife, coupled with significant delay in reporting, negates a prima facie case of rape under misconception of fact. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 )
4. A long-term consensual physical relationship where parties live as spouses does not constitute rape under Section 375, IPC, even if there is a subsequent refusal to marry. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Impugned order set aside and FIR along with all further proceedings quashed. (Para 16 )
6. Can a High Court treat a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution as a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC?
Yes, the High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters under either Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, regardless of the nomenclature used. (Para 1 )
7. Under what circumstances can a court exercise inherent powers to quash a first information report?
FIRs may be quashed where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, do not disclose a cognizable offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are barred by law, or are maliciously instituted with ulterior motives. (Para 11 )
8. Does a subsequent refusal to marry after a long-term consensual relationship constitute rape under Section 375, IPC?
No, where parties live as husband and wife for a long period and the relationship is consensual, a subsequent refusal to marry does not establish that consent was given under a misconception of fact. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT :
(C.T. Ravikumar, J.) :
Leave granted.
1. The captioned Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.07.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16825 of 2018. The said Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of FIR dated 21.02.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 28 of 2018 registered under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) at Police Station Nandganj in Ghazipur District of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In view of the fact that quashment of FIR was sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749. It was held therein that the High Court could exercise its power of judicial review in Criminal matters and it could exercise the power either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C’), to prevent the abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Nomenclature under which a petition is filed is not quite relevant. If the court finds that the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, it may treat the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 (the complainant).
3. The gravamen of her complaint, based on which the above-mentioned crime was registered on 21.02.2018, is revealed from the following allegations made thereunder: -
“…My elder sister Meera Devi was married to Satendra Yadav Village Kukuda P.S. Nandganj, District – Ghazipur, Lalu Yadav S/o Seshnath Yadav R/o Atarsuya P.S. Nandganj District – Ghazipur used to come to my house along with the brother in law Ravindra Yadav of my elder sister, at that time about five years back I was a student of High School, then the said Lalu Yadav by way of deceiving myself promise that he will marry me and established physical relationship with me without my consent and started living with me as the husband. He used to say that he would marry me when he gets a job. My mother Rajvati Devi and my father Hari Singh Yadav was also of the knowledge of our relation. When my father and mother raised an objection about our relation then Lalu Yadav told her that he will marry Preeti. He told her that nobody should object and therefore my parents went silent and Lalu Yadav kept established with me the applicant without my consent due to which I became pregnant after the knowledge of which he give me a medicine of with which and abortion has occurred and when the said Lalu Yadav came to the house of the applicant on 28.09.2017 then he took the said applicant to Varanasi on 29.09.2017 and kept me in a hotel and again made physical relationship with me due to which I became pregnant in May 2017 and said Lalu Yadav did my abortion my pressuring me again, thereafter again 17.12.2017 the said Lalu Yadav took me to a hotel in Varanasi an made physical relationship with me their, thereafter Lalu Yadav got a job in army and after which he is refusing to marry the applicant…”
4. In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the details given under item No. 3 in Annexure- P2/FIR, which read thus: -
“3 (a) occurrence of offence.
1. Day Date from – 05.01.2013
Date To – 05.01.2018
(b) Information received at P.S:
Date: 21.02.2018. Time: 21.34 hr.”
5. Before delving into the rival contentions, it is relevant to note that though this Court stayed further proceedings in case Crime No. 28/2018 on 13.11.2018, this Court virtually modified the same on 18.08.2023 as under: -
“It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court staying further proceedings in Crime No. 28/2018 registered at P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur, U.P
