FALSE PROMISES AND CONSENSUAL BETRAYAL: INSIDE LALU YADAV’S CASE

CASE NAME: Lalu Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

CASE NO. : SLP Criminal No.9371 of 2018

DATED: October 16, 2024

QUORUM: Justice C. T. Ravikumar

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this case, Appeal was filed against the order of High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition filed u/a 226 of Constitution seeking quashing of FIR registered u/s 376 and 313 of IPC 1860 at Police Station of UP. The quashment of FIR u/a 226 of Constitution was prayed on the decision of this court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, which held that HC can exercise judicial review power in criminal matters and prevent abuse of process of court or secure ends of justice u/a 226 or u/s 482 of CrPC 1973. 

The complaint on which the crime was registered reveals the allegations that Lalu Yadav used to come to home, when she was a high school student 5 years ago. He deceived her with promise of marrying her and established the physical relationship with her, without her consent and started living as husband and wife. He promised her to marry once he get job. Her parents had knowledge of their relationship. When parents raised objections about their relationship, he told them to remain silent as he would marry her. She became pregnant where she gave no consent. He got her aborted with medicine after he got to know about her pregnancy. He then took her to a hotel in Varanasi and established physical relationship due to which she again became pregnant. He pressurized her to get aborted. After few days again in a room in Varanasi, physical relationship was established. After getting a job in army, he refused to marry her. In FIR, occurrence of event was shown from year 2013 to 2018, but complaint was registered in the year 2018.

The Supreme Court brought stay in further proceedings for investigation into offence u/s 313 of IPC. With the filing of counter affidavit, the investigation was permitted to continue into offence u/s 313 of IPC. It was found that after due investigation of material on record, including her statement, medical reports etc. It was concluded that no evidence/material available w.r.t offence u/s 313 of IPC i.e. no material found substantiating the abortion of victim. There is undisputed position about allegation of commission of offence under Section 313, IPC stands omitted against appellant.

 

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. 1. whether the allegations in the complaint reveals prima facie case that the complainant had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged, or whether it reveals a case of consensual sex?

• Whether the impugned order invites interference and the subject FIR can be quashed invoking inherent jurisdiction?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS 

• Indian Constitution

• Article 226 –

“Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”

• Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 (Replaced Provisions of BNS)

• Section 375 – (Section 63 of BNS)

“Rape – 

A man is said to commit “rape” if he—

(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or

(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:—

First.—Against her will.

Secondly.—Without her consent.

Thirdly.—With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly.—With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.—With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly.—With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly.—When she is unable to communicate consent.
Section 376 – (Section 64 of BNS)  

“Punishment for rape.— 

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which [shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine].”

• Section 313 – (Section 89 of BNS) –

“Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent.—

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (Replaced Provisions of BNSS)

• Section 482 –  (Section 528 of BNSS)

“Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

• Section 156 –(Section 175 of BNSS)

“Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.― 

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANT

1. FIR reveals time of occurrence of offence is allegedly from 2013-2018 and FIR is registered in 2018 (time lag of five years).
2. According to statements of Respondent No.4 in FIR, complainant herself and appellant were living as husband and wife.(establishing long consensual relationship)
3. There are irregularities in the statements made by Respondent No.4 in her complaint between statements “established physical relationship with me without my consent” and “started living with me as the husband”.
4. Absence of prima facie case that complainant had given her consent for sexual relationship with appellant under misconception of fact.
5. Respondent went along to Varanasi with knowledge of her parents/family and stayed in hotel during such visits. (establish consent removing misconception of fact of rape)
6. Investigating agency itself omitted the offence u/s 313 IPC against appellant-accused through allegations in FIR.
7. The court need to exercise extraordinary power u/a 226 of Constitution or inherent powers u/s 482 of CrPC, to prevent abuse of process of any court or to secure ends of justice as:
   1. Allegations made in FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence
   2. Allegations and other materials in FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of Code
   3. Allegations or complaint and evidence collected in support of same does not disclose commission of any offence and make case against accused
   4. Allegations in FIR do not constitute cognizable offence but constitute non cognizable offence
   5. Malafide criminal proceeding with motive of vengeance and private and personal grudge on accused
8. In decision of Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka and Anr., this court held that it is difficult to sustain charges against appellant who may have made false promise of marriage but difficult to hold sexual intercourse in continued 8 years of relationship as “rape” when own allegation of lived together as husband and wife.

CONTENTIONS BY RESPONDENT

1. Appellant deceived her by making false promise to marry and then by establishing physical relationship without her consent.
2. Appellant causing the abortion, when he gets the knowledge of pregnancy.

 

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court considering the decisions of similar cases and finding identity in facts, the court reversed the impugned order where petition u/s 482 CrPC for quashing FIR was dismissed. It allowed the appeal by setting aside impugned order and quashing the subject FIR. It is of the view that HC gone wrong in considering question about consent for sexual relationship was based on misconception of fact alleged or consensual sex. HC should have exercised power u/s 482 of CrPC to prevent abuse of power of court. The allegation of offence u/s 313 IPC is omitted so that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the appellant of commission of offence punishable u/s 376, IPC.

 

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court in the current case has examined the impugned judgments of the lower courts and examined the evidences carefully. In securing the ends of justice, the inherent powers of court is used and quashed the FIR so that frivolous allegations on the accused with respect to rape and abortion with no consent is set aside making way for the accused to free from charges. It is carried out with detailed verification of the facts of the case, evidences and examinations of the discrepancies in the allegations made in the complaint on reasonable grounds and take decisions in a fair and just manner promoting justice and fairness in legal system.

 

“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 falls into the 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.”

WRITTEN BY: SOUJANYA V