'Lived Like Husband-Wife For 5 Years' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Alleging Rape On False Marriage Promise

The Supreme Court today quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a woman and impregnating her on the pretext of marriage. It found that the FIR reveals a case of long consensual sex where both the complainant and the respondent lived as husband and wife.A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal held that although a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed for quashing the charges of rape and causing miscarriage without women's consent, the same could have been treated as a petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings. It held: "In view of the fact that quashment of FIR was sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate. It was held therein that the High Court could exercise its power of judicial review in Criminal matters and it could exercise the power either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'Cr.P.C'), to prevent the abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Nomenclature under which a petition is filed is not quite relevant. If the court finds that the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226, it may treat the petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C."Brief factsThe present criminal appeal is filed against the order dated July 26, 2018, passed by the Allahabad High Court in an Article 226 writ petition refusing to quash the FIR under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.As per the allegations of the complainant, one Lalu Yadav established a physical relationship with her without her consent and started living with her as husband. The complainant's family knew about their relationship. Lalu Yadav took her to hotels in various places made her pregnant and then had her medicines which caused her miscarriage. But later refused to marry her when he got a job in Army. This continued from 2018 to 2023.What did the Allahabad High Court say?The Allahabad High Court observed and held that there could be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or there exists any statutory restriction operating against the power of the police to investigate a case.The Supreme Court through an interim order stayed the proceedings on December 11, 2018. But the same order was modified in 2023, allowing for the investigation for offence under Section 313 IPC. Upon investigation, the police found no material substantiating the abortion of the victim and ruled out Section 313 IPC.What did the Supreme Court say?The Court at the outset noted that there is huge irregularity between the statements “established physical relationship with me without my consent” and “started living with me as the husband”. It observed that the High Court was "palpably gone wrong" in not considering the question of whether the allegations released prima facie case revealed a consensual sexual relationship or not. The Court noted that the offences were alleged to have taken place during the period 05.01.2013 to 05.01.2018.The Court held: "Firstly, it is to be noted that the subject FIR itself would reveal that there occurred a delay of more than 5 years for registering the FIR; secondly, the very case of the complainant, as revealed from the FIR, would go to show that they lived for a long period as man and wife and thirdly, the facts and circumstances obtained from the subject FIR and other materials on record would reveal absence of a prima facie case that the complainant viz., respondent No. 4 had given her consent for sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact.""At any rate, the allegations in the FIR would not constitute a prima facie case of false promise to marry from the inception with a view to establish sexual relationship and instead they would reveal a prima facie case of long consensual physical relationship, during which the complainant addressed the appellant as her husband," the bench averred.Therefore, the subsequent refusal to marry the complainant would not be sufficient by any stretch of the imagination to draw the existence of a prima facie case that the complainant had given 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 Section 375, IPC, the Court observed.Lastly, it concluded that since the offence of Section 313 was omitted, there is absolutely no prima facie case for proceeding further on allegations of rape.The Court found that this was a fit case where the High Court should have exercised Section 482 CrPC.Case Details: Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, Arising Out Of SLP (Crl) No.9371 of...

'Lived Like Husband-Wife For 5 Years' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Alleging Rape On False Marriage Promise

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

The Court noted that it was a case of long consensual physical relationship.

Tags