Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 313 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committed from 2013 to 2018 however, the FIR was registered only in 2018 – There was a delay of more than 5 years in filing the FIR – Complainant and the appellant were living for long as husband and wife – There is a huge irregularity between the statements “established physical relationship with me without my consent” and “started living with me as the husband” – Present is a case of long consensual physical relationship during which the complainant addressed the appellant as her husband – Allegations in the FIR do not constitute a prima facie case of false promise to marry from the inception with a view to establish sexual relationship – On facts, subsequent refusal to marry the complainant not sufficient to prima facie establish that the complainant gave consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, so as to accuse the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of s.375, IPC – Further, since now the allegation of offence u/s.313, IPC is omitted by the State, there is no prima facie case for proceeding further against the appellant on the allegation of commission of offence punishable u/s.376, IPC – High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power u/s.482, CrPC – Impugned order set aside – FIR and all further proceedings based thereon, quashed. [Paras 9, 14-16]
Judicial Review – Criminal cases – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Appellant sought quashing of FIR u/Article 226 – Nomenclature of petition not relevant, petition may be treated as one u/s.482, CrPC:
Held: High Court can exercise its power either u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India or u/s.482, CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of the court or to secure the ends of justice – Nomenclature under which a petition is filed is irrelevant – If the court finds that the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court u/Article 226, it may treat the petition u/s.482, CrPC. [Para 1]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.