Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Naka, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, as Case Crime No. 106 of 2016, based on a complaint by the third respondent alleging that the appellant had maintained a physical relationship with his daughter under a false promise of marriage, constituting offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant, an IIT coaching class operator, and the victim, a 25-year-old banking coaching student, had developed a relationship that led to a marriage solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir on 16th February 2015. The appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 6th May 2015, shortly after a legal notice dated 1st May 2015 issued by the victim's advocate admitted the marriage. The FIR was lodged on 27th May 2015. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, seeking quashing of the FIR, but the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in its judgment dated 7th December 2016. The core legal issue was whether the High Court erred in not quashing the FIR when the relationship was consensual and had culminated in marriage, rendering the prosecution an abuse of process. The appellant argued that the prosecution was abusive, citing the marriage admission in the legal notice and the Investigating Officer's affidavit indicating the marriage might negate the rape allegation. The respondent State supported the High Court's decision, contending that the ingredients of the offences were made out. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence, including the legal notice, marriage certificate, and statements, finding that the relationship was consensual and led to marriage, with the victim's main grievance being the appellant's failure to perform matrimonial obligations. The Court held that the allegations of false promise were baseless, and applying the principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, it concluded that no prudent person could find sufficient ground for proceeding. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and quashed the FIR, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process of Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 376, 506 - The appellant sought quashing of an FIR alleging rape and criminal intimidation based on false promise of marriage - The Supreme Court found that the relationship was consensual and culminated in marriage, as evidenced by a legal notice and marriage certificate, making the allegations baseless - Held that no prudent person could conclude sufficient ground for proceeding, applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and quashed the FIR as an abuse of process (Paras 6-10). B) Family Law - Marriage Validity - Consensual Relationship - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 9 - The dispute involved a marriage solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir and a pending petition for restitution of conjugal rights - The Court noted that the victim's legal notice admitted the marriage, and the main grievance was non-performance of matrimonial obligations, not lack of consent - This undermined the rape allegation based on false promise of marriage, supporting quashing of the FIR (Paras 2-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in not quashing the FIR registered for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when the relationship was consensual and culminated in marriage, making the prosecution an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision
Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 7th December 2016 and quashed Case Crime No. 106 of 2016 registered at Police Station Naka, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh; appeal allowed
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
- 1860
- Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
