Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a criminal appeal challenging an FIR registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 376(2), 377, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and various clauses of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR was based on a complaint filed by the second respondent on 23rd February 2018 at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur. The parties had become acquainted in 2011 when both frequented a beauty parlour. According to the respondent, the appellant proposed to her in June 2011, and they began a relationship. She alleged that from 2012 onwards, the appellant had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions based on a false promise of marriage. She became pregnant in February 2013 and underwent an abortion in March 2013. The relationship continued, and an engagement ceremony took place in July 2017. In December 2017, she became pregnant again and, based on the appellant's assurance of marriage, did not undergo abortion. However, in January 2018, she discovered photographs of the appellant's engagement with another woman and learned that he had married another girl on 22nd February 2018. The appellant claimed that he had married the respondent through Nikah on 20th January 2017 and that her name appeared as his wife in his passport issued in August 2017. The core legal issue was whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed, particularly examining whether the consent for the physical relationship was vitiated by a false promise of marriage. The appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and that prosecution was an abuse of process. The State and respondent contended that the issue of false promise was a matter of evidence for trial and relied on the precedent of Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh. The court analyzed the material in the charge sheet, noting that the respondent was over 18 when the relationship began and that the physical relationship continued from 2012 to 2017, including an engagement in 2017 and pregnancies in 2013 and 2017. The court found it impossible to accept that the relationship was maintained solely on a false promise of marriage, given its long duration and the respondent's participation in the engagement. The court also considered evidence of the Nikahnama and witness statements supporting the marriage claim. Applying the principle from Anurag Soni that consent based on misconception is not voluntary, the court held that the prosecution case did not establish lack of consent. Consequently, the court concluded that continuing the prosecution would be a gross abuse of process and quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and all proceedings. Additionally, the court directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the respondent and ensured that Rs. 10 lakhs already deposited be invested for the benefit of the minor child, while preserving the respondent's right to claim maintenance.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent and False Promise of Marriage - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 375 - The court examined whether consent for sexual relationship was vitiated by false promise of marriage - Held that consent based on misconception is not voluntary consent, but in this case the long-term relationship from 2013 to 2017, including engagement and pregnancies, made it impossible to accept that the relationship was maintained solely on basis of false promise - The prosecution case could not establish lack of consent (Paras 7-9, 12). B) Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Abuse of Process - The court considered whether continuation of prosecution would be abuse of process - Based on material in charge sheet showing consensual relationship over several years, the court held that continuing prosecution would be gross abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by it (Paras 12-13). C) Criminal Law - Evidence and Investigation - Nikahnama and Relationship Status - The court examined evidence regarding marriage between parties - Seizure panchnama recorded carbon copy of Nikahnama dated 20th January 2017, and witness confirmed performance of Nikah - Though original not produced, this evidence supported appellant's claim of marriage (Para 10). D) Family Law - Maintenance and Child Support - The court directed financial arrangements for respondent and child - Appellant directed to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to respondent and Rs. 10 lakhs already deposited to be invested for minor child's benefit till majority - Respondent preserved right to claim maintenance in accordance with law (Paras 14, 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a case for quashing the criminal proceedings is made out based on the material forming part of the charge sheet, particularly regarding the nature of consent in the physical relationship between the parties.
Final Decision
Impugned judgment and order dated 26th February 2021 quashed and set aside. Crime No. 78 of 2018 registered with Sadar Police Station at Nagpur, charge sheet, and further proceedings quashed. Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with Sessions Court at Nagpur within six weeks. Rs. 10 lakhs already deposited with High Court to be transferred to Sessions Court and invested for minor child's benefit till majority.
Law Points
- Consent in rape cases under Section 375 IPC
- vitiation of consent by false promise of marriage
- abuse of process of law
- quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent powers
