In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.185 OF 2024-SC- Lodging rape case after 34 years on basis of bald statement that prosecutrix was minor at time of commission of offence, could be ground to quash proceedings: SC junks FIR, upholds finding that case was filed only on account of ‘greed for property’
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [09-01-2024]

Read Order: SURESH GARODIA v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 16, 2024: The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered under section 376 of IPC after noting that the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual and no explanation was given regarding the late filing of the FIR. The Top Court also observed that the child, who was born out of the said relationship, had been treated by the accused as his own son and all the facilities had been provided to him.

The appellant had approached the Top Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) & for quashing of the order of the Magistrate for taking cognizance under Section 376/506 of IPC.

The factual background of this case was that the prosecutrix lodged a First Information Report alleging that when she was fifteen years of age, the appellant committed rape on her and as a result of which she gave birth to a child. After a final report came to be filed, the Magistrate directed that the cognizance be taken on the basis of the police report. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which was rejected vide the impugned order.

It was the appellant’s case that the FIR was filed after 34 years only in order to blackmail the appellant and therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate dated for taking cognizance was not sustainable in law.

The complainant submitted that prima facie the statement of the prosecutrix had to be taken on face value. It was submitted that since the de facto complainant stated in the FIR that she was a minor at the time of the commission of offence, even if it is said to be consensual, the offence under Section 376 IPC would be made out.

After a perusal of the records, the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the son of the prosecutrix admitted that the appellant herein was providing cash money and other facilities to him as his son. The final report stated that only on account of greed for property of the appellant Suresh Garodia, the prosecutrix, in connivance with her son, had filed the FIR after a period of 34 years. The I.O. also opined that the case was of a civil nature and therefore the appellant herein should be discharged from the said case.

“No doubt that the learned Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C., is not bound to accept the final report of the I.O. However, if the learned Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O. Nothing of that sort has been done by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 4th July 2017”, the Bench stated.

“We find that lodging a case after 34 years and that too on the basis of a bald statement that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of offence, could itself be a ground to quash the proceedings. No explanation whatsoever is given in the FIR as to why the prosecutrix was keeping silent for a long period of 34 years. The material on record shows that the relationship was consensual, inasmuch as the son who is born out of the said relationship has been treated by the appellant as his son and all the facilities, including cash money, have been provided to him”, the Bench opined.

The Top Court also held that the finding of the I.O. that the case was filed only for the greed for the property of the appellant herein couldnot be said to be erroneous.

“We find that the continuation of the proceedings would lead to nothing else but an abuse of process of law”, the Bench held while setting aside the orders and allowing the appeal.