‘Conflicting allegations’: SC quashes man’s rape charge based on false promise of marriage

The Supreme Court recently dropped a case against a man for rape based on a false promise of marriage, finding that there was a major inconsistency between the complainant’s statements that the accused “entered a physical relationship with her without her consent” and “with her “lived together” as her husband.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal set aside the Allahabad High Court’s 2018 order refusing to quash the FIR lodged in 2018 in Ghazipur district against appellant Lalu Yadav.

“The present case is an appropriate case where the Supreme Court should have exercised the power available under Section 482 CrPC to prevent misuse of the court process,” the bench said.

Yadav had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the FIR dated February 21, 2018 registered against him under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code at Nandganj police station in Ghazipur district.

Referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ‘Pepsi Foods Ltd Vs Special Judicial Magistrate’ (1998), the bench pointed out that it has been held that the Supreme Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters and that it has the powers may in either case exercise Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 to prevent abuse of the court’s process or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

The nomenclature under which a petition is submitted is not entirely relevant. If the court finds that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, it may entertain the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the bench pointed out.

In the present case, the court stated that the time of the offense was allegedly between January 5, 2013 and January 5, 2018, but the FIR was registered only on February 21, 2018 at 9:34 pm.

Apart from this, it is obvious that even according to the statement of the complainant, she and the complainant lived as husband and wife. However, the complaint is that the complainant deceived the complainant by promising him marriage and then initiating a physical relationship, it said.

The top court also took note that although there was an allegation of commission of offense under Section 313 IPC in the FIR, the investigating agency after completing the investigation itself failed to commit offense under Section 313 IPC against the complainant. accused.

“We are of the considered view that the Supreme Court committed a manifest error in failing to examine the question of whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie establish that the applicant consented to the sexual relationship with the applicant “has given false assessment of facts.” alleged or whether it discloses a case of consensual sex,” the bench said.

The court observed that, firstly, it should be noted that the FIR in question itself shows that there was a delay of more than five years in registering the FIR.

“Secondly, the case of the complainant as evident from the FIR would prove that they lived as husband and wife for a long period of time and thirdly, the facts and circumstances emerging from the FIR investigation and other materials on record , Shed light “There is no prima facie evidence that the complainant gave her consent to a sexual relationship with the complainant under false assessment of the facts,” the court added.

In any event, the allegations in the FIR would not constitute a prima facie case of a false promise to marry from the outset in order to establish a sexual relationship, but would instead reveal a prima facie case of a long consensual physical relationship during which the The The court said the complainant addressed the complainant as her husband.

Further, the Court observed that this was also the case with the complainant as was evident from the FIR and the other materials on record that she traveled with the complainant to Varanasi with the knowledge of her family and stayed with him during that time Visits stayed in hotels.

“Given the facts and circumstances established in the present case, the subsequent refusal to marry the complainant would in no way be sufficient to conclude at first glance that the complainant consented to his sexual relationship with the complainant under a false assessment of the facts to charge her with committing rape under Section 375 IPC,” the court ruled.