Case title: Ms. X Vs Mr. A and Anr.
Case no.: SLP(Criminal) No. 3187 of 2023
Decided on: 18.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B. R. Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The prosecution alleged that in 2016, when the complainant was a minor, the accused made her fall in love with him while preparing for exams. The accused promised marriage and engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant. Subsequently, the accused took the complainant to his aunt’s house where he had sexual intercourse with her. The accused then took the complainant to his house to introduce her to his parents and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse.
A charge-sheet was filed against the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. The trial court initiated criminal proceedings against the accused based on the charge-sheet. The High Court quashed the proceedings, leading to an appeal by the original complainant. The appeal challenged the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings, arguing that it erred in its judgment. The case involved conflicting versions of events provided by the complainant and raised questions about consent and false promises of marriage.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case included sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”). Specifically, the accused individuals faced charges under Sections 354D, 376(2)(n), 504, and 506 read with 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(v-a) of The SC/ST Act. These legal provisions formed the basis for the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused persons in the trial court.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant contended that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had grossly erred in quashing the proceedings. It was argued that the Single Judge conducted a mini-trial while considering a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The appellant asserted that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the material on record, along with the charge-sheet, was sufficient to conclude that the case would not result in a conviction even if it went to trial. The appellant also argued that the High Court should have considered that permitting the continuation of the proceedings would not lead to a conviction and would instead result in an abuse of the legal process and a miscarriage of justice.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents contended that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had correctly considered the material on record and concluded that the prosecution case, even if taken at face value, did not constitute the necessary elements of the offenses charged with. They argued that the High Court, relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, rightly held that there was insufficient material on record to establish the offenses punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents maintained that the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was appropriate as there was no sufficient evidence to support the charges against the accused individuals.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The Court analyzed the facts of the case and considered the arguments presented by both the appellant and the respondents. The Court noted that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution, especially in rare cases. The Court emphasized that it should not delve into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the FIR or complaint.
In its judgment, the Court referred to previous cases and legal provisions related to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court highlighted specific categories of cases where such powers could be used to prevent abuse of the legal process or to ensure justice.
Ultimately, the Court found that the present case fell under certain categories where quashing the criminal proceedings was justified. The Court concluded that there was insufficient material on record to establish the offenses charged under Section 376 of the IPC. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings, dismissing the appeal filed by the original complainant. The Court affirmed the High Court’s decision, stating that there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused individuals, and allowing the continuation of the proceedings would result in an abuse of the legal process and a miscarriage of justice.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
