5 Jan 2024 3:22 PM GMT
The Supreme Court (on January 03), while quashing a criminal case against the accused-appellant for raping a 25-year-old woman on the pretext of marriage, held that there was a consensual relationship that culminated into marriage. Thus, the Court did not find any basis for the allegation that the physical relationship was due to the false promise of marriage as, ultimately, the marriage was solemnised.
“Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage.,” observed Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal.
Additionally, the Division bench also opined that in this case the allegations are such that 'no prudent person' can ever conclude that there exists a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant.
“Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant.”
The entire case rests on a complaint filed by the father (third respondent) of a victim. He alleged that the appellant was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi. His daughter and appellant met and developed love for each other. The appellant assured the victim to marry her. Thereafter, the appellant prepared a certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir. He alleged that by playing fraud, the appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim. Consequently, the appellant left the victim at his father's residence. This led to the filing of a complaint against the appellant. Since the High Court declined to quash the FIR, the appellant has preferred this present appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel brought to the Court's attention a notice issued by a victim's advocate. In the notice, the victim admitted that a marriage was solemnized between her and the appellant. Per contra, the respondent supported the impugned judgment.
At the outset, the Court observed that as per the notice, the victim has been described as the wife of the appellant. Apart from this, the notice also acknowledged that the marriage between the appellant and the victim was solemnized. Pertinently, it was also alleged in the notice that the victim was turned away from the matrimonial home by the appellant on the ground that his father wanted a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. Thus, by the said notice, the victim called upon the appellant to arrange “Vidai.”
The Court also perused the victim's statement made before the police officer. Therein, she stated that the appellant took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and solemnized the marriage.
In view of these facts and circumstances, the Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship that culminated in the marriage. Thus, the Court allowed the appellant's appeal and quashed the FIR.
Case Title: AJEET SINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH., Diary No.- 42857 - 2016
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 18
Click here to read the judgment