Case Note & Summary
The applicant, accused No. 2 in C.R. No. 786 of 2024 registered with Chaturshringi Police Station, Pune, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR and subsequent chargesheet. The FIR dated 4 October 2024 alleged offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 354, 417, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant and one Pratik (accused No. 1). The victim was Respondent No. 2. According to the prosecution, Pratik was in a relationship with the victim and had established physical relations on promise of marriage. The victim, Pratik and the applicant subsequently began residing together in a building at Pashan, Pune. The victim specifically alleged that in July 2022, while she was alone in the kitchen, the applicant entered, touched her inappropriately and demanded sexual favours. The applicant was therefore accused under Section 354 IPC. The applicant argued that the victim had not provided a specific date and time for the incident, that the FIR was lodged after a lapse of three months, and that he was falsely implicated because the victim believed the applicant was responsible for souring her relations with Pratik. The Court, after perusing the chargesheet, observed that the victim's statement prima facie made out a strong case. It noted that in the Indian societal context, victims of sexual assault are often reluctant to report and minor inconsistencies should not be overemphasised. Relying on Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shree Kant Shekari, and State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, the Court held that the victim's testimony cannot be disbelieved without corroboration, that mere delay in lodging FIR does not render the prosecution's case redundant, and that courts must deal with sexual assault cases with sensitivity and sternness. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it, concluding that a strong prima facie case existed against the applicant and quashing was not warranted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Sections 354, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The applicant sought quashing of FIR and chargesheet, alleging that the victim did not provide a specific date and time, that the FIR was registered after three months out of vengeance, and that he was falsely implicated. The Court found a strong prima facie case of outraging modesty based on the victim's statement. It applied Supreme Court precedents holding that victim testimony in sexual assault cases cannot be disbelieved merely due to lack of corroboration or minor discrepancies, that delay in lodging FIR does not vitiate prosecution, and that courts must deal with such cases sternly. Hence, the application was dismissed (Paras 1-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings arising out of C.R. No. 786 of 2024, particularly the chargesheet and FIR, for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 354, 417, 504 and 506 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the applicant's contention of false implication and delay
Final Decision
The application was dismissed. The court held that a strong prima facie case against the applicant was made out and therefore it was not a fit case for quashing.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Victim testimony in sexual assault cases not to be disbelieved without corroboration
- minor discrepancies not fatal
- delay in lodging FIR does not render prosecution version redundant
- courts must be sensitive while dealing with sexual assault cases
- right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India includes protection from sexual assault
