The High Court while entertaining a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR cannot evaluate the defence and discharge the accused before the trail. The High Court must refrain from passing an order which will result in giving finality to the circumstances. This was held in the matter of Shri. Aishwarya Bindal vs. The State, Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi & Anr [CRL.M.C. 177/2021 & CRL.M.A.901/2021(stay)]. The judgement was given by Justice Subramonium Prasad.
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing an FIR for the offences under Sections 509, 377, 313, 506, 376(2)(n) I.P.C. The petitioner was accused of committing rape on the prosecutrix under the pretence of marriage. The version of the petitioner stated that he is a bright student of a reputed university and that the prosecutrix has a history of blackmailing people. The petition stated that the prosecutrix came to visit the accused in jail twice before the petitioner was granted bail and it is stated that the prosecutrix threatened the petitioner/accused either to marry her or give Rs.15,00,000/- for closing the F.I.R.
The Court relied on Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) [18 SCC 191] to show the distinction between rape and consensual sex. In such cases, the court must carefully examine, whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.
In the present case, the question was to whether the consent for intercourse was given due to promise of marriage or that the allegation of promise of marriage was a mere ruse to file a case against the accused/petitioner under Section 376 Cr.P.C or whether such a promise was made at all.
It was hence stated in the judgement that, “The material relied on by the accused is not of such nature and is not sufficient to completely reject and over-rule the assertions contained in the complaint. This Court is therefore not inclined to quash the FIR on the basis of the available material. This court however cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner is a youngster and an engineering graduate and the entire life of the petitioner/accused is at stake. Keeping that in mind the trial court is directed to complete the trail expeditiously, not later than one year from today.”
The revision petition was hence dismissed with the above observations along with a pending application.
