Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Samadhan S/o Sitatram Manmothe, filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad dated 06.03.2025, which dismissed his application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR No. 294 of 2024 registered at City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City for offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was lodged by respondent No.2, a married woman, alleging that the appellant had raped her on the false promise of marriage and had also criminally intimidated her. The appellant contended that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was a malicious afterthought due to the complainant's matrimonial discord with her husband. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties and the amicus curiae, examined the factual matrix. The complainant was married in 2019 and had a minor daughter, but due to discord with her husband and in-laws, she had been residing separately since May 2020. In July 2020, she filed a complaint against her husband at the Women's Grievance Redressal Centre. The court noted that the complainant and the appellant were in a relationship since 2020, and the FIR was lodged only in August 2024, after a delay of about four years. The court found that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case of rape as the relationship was consensual and the promise to marry was not shown to be false from the inception. The court also observed that the complainant had not responded to the notice and the prosecution appeared to be malicious. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 528 BNSS - Inherent Powers - The court examined whether an FIR alleging rape and criminal intimidation should be quashed when the complainant was in a consensual relationship with the accused and the complaint was filed after matrimonial discord with her husband. Held that where the allegations do not make out a prima facie case and the prosecution is malicious, the FIR is liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law (Paras 2-24). B) Indian Penal Code - Rape - Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 507 IPC - Consensual Relationship - The court considered the ingredients of rape and held that a promise to marry without immediate intention to fulfill does not vitiate consent if the relationship was consensual over a long period. The court found that the appellant and respondent No.2 were in a consensual relationship and the complaint was an afterthought due to matrimonial issues (Paras 4-20). C) Criminal Law - Malicious Prosecution - Abuse of Process - The court noted that the FIR was lodged after a delay of four years and the complainant had previously filed complaints against her husband. The court held that continuing prosecution would be an abuse of process and quashed the FIR (Paras 21-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR alleging offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 IPC, when the relationship between the appellant and respondent No.2 was consensual and the FIR was filed after a delay and with malafide intent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Bombay High Court dated 06.03.2025, and quashed FIR No. 294 of 2024 registered at City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City, along with all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR
- Lack of prima facie case
- Malicious prosecution
- Abuse of process of law
- Consensual relationship
- Section 528 BNSS
- Section 376 IPC
- Section 482 CrPC
