Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1069

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Prashant - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. ..... OF 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2793 of 2024)
Decided On : 20-11-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, AOR Mr. Nikhil Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Atul Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khare, Adv. Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv. Ms. Shreya Saurabh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv. Mr. Annirudh Sharma Ii, Adv. Mr. Veer Vikrant Singh, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Repeated rape and criminal intimidation – Mere breakup of relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings – What was consensual relationship between parties at initial stages cannot be given colour of criminality when said relationship does not fructify into marital relationship.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 64 and 351] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Repeated rape and criminal intimidation – Appellant and complainant first came in contact in year 2017 and established a relationship thereafter – Parties met multiple times at various places during years 2017 and 2019, including at parks and their respective houses – Although complainant stated that appellant had forceful sexual relationship with her, neither did she stop meeting appellant thereafter, nor did she file criminal complaint during said period – It is inconceivable that complainant would continue to meet appellant or maintain prolonged association or physical relationship with him in absence of voluntary consent on her part – Appellant and complainant were in consensual relationship – They are both educated adults – Complainant, after filing FIR against appellant, got married in year 2020 to some other person – Similarly, appellant was also married in year 2019 – Possibly, marriage of appellant in year 2019 has led complainant to file FIR against him as they were in consensual relationship till then – Taking allegations in FIR and charge-sheet as they stand, crucial ingredients of offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. (Paras 17, 18 and 19)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 64 and 351] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Repeated rape and criminal intimidation – Even if prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from appellant – Relationship between parties was cordial and also consensual in nature – Mere breakup of relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings – What was consensual relationship between parties at initial stages cannot be given colour of criminality when said relationship does not fructify into marital relationship – Both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives – Continuation of prosecution in present case would amount to gross abuse of process of law – No purpose would be served by continuing prosecution – High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent on part of complainant and that she was victim of sexual assault over a period of time and proceeded to dismiss application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a completely misconceived basis – Facts of present case are appropriate for High Court to have exercised power available under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of court’s process by continuing prosecution – Impugned Judgment and order of High Court set aside and FIR quashed. (Paras 19, 21 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by order passed by High Court of Delhi dated 16.10.2023 in CRL.M.C 6066 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby High Court refused to quash FIR registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, appellant is before this Court.
Findings of Court:
FIR No.272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, charge-sheet dated 22.11.2019 filed in Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi and trial pending in Court of ASJ, Rohini, Delhi shall accordingly stand quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appeal concerns quashing of FIR No. 272 of 2019 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. (!) (!) - Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual and that mere breakup cannot result in criminal proceedings; crucial ingredients of 376(2)(n) IPC are absent. (!) (!) - The High Court’s order dismissing the 482 CrPC application was set aside; FIR and related proceedings were quashed. (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 16.10.2023 in CRL.M.C 6066 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” for short) whereby the High Court refused to quash FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), the appellant is before this Court.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC. As per the said FIR, the complainant alleged that she was living with her brother and working at the Vodafone Call Centre. The appellant herein came in contact with the complainant in the year 2017 and they had a conversation on call and got to know each other. They first met in November 2017 and again in April 2018 at a park. The complainant further stated that in January 2019, the appellant found her address and had a forceful sexual relationship with her. It was further stated that the appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual relationship with her. However, the appellant later denied to marry the complainant by giving excuses. Further, the appellant also refused that the complainant should meet his parents.

4. The complainant has also given her statement under Section 164 CrPC. In the said statement, apart from reiterating the said allegations, she further stated that the appellant used to take the complainant to his room in Chhatarpur and have physical relationship with her. After the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet dated 22.11.2019 was filed.

5. Being aggrieved by the said criminal proceedings, the appellant approached the High Court of Delhi by filing CRL.M.C. No.6066 of 2019 under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2023, the High Court dismissed the said petition filed by the appellant. The High Court noted that the alleged relationship between the parties was not the outcome of consent on the part of the complainant and that allegations made in the FIR and in the statement made under Section 164 CrPC were sufficient to constitute alleged offences against the appellant. Hence the instant appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned ASG for the respondent State.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the contents of the FIR and MLC report do not disclose any cognizable offence. The parties were in a consensual relationship. The institution of the FIR was with the ulterior motive of retribution due to a personal vengeance. There are umpteen contradictions in the FIR, MLC report and the statement made by the complainant under Section 164 CrPC. It was submitted that in the FIR dated 29.09.2019, the complainant stated that the appellant committed alleged forceful sexual acts on her in January 2019. However, in the MLC report dated 28.09.2019, she alleged that the incident of rape happened one week before the MLC. Further in the statement under Section 164 CrPC, she stated that the appellant used to take her to his room in Chhatarpur and forcibly committed rape on her. Hence, there is inconsistency in her statements. Therefore, it was prayed that this Court may set aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2023 and quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellant herein arising out of FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019.

8. Per contra, the learned ASG for the respondent-State contended that a prima facie case has been made out and that the statements made under Section 164 CrPC are sufficient to constitute offences levelled against the appellant. Both FIR and MLC reports state that the appellant had a physical relationship with th