Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the Gujarat High Court's order quashing an FIR registered against the second respondent for offences under Sections 376, 499, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant, a woman from Jodhpur, had filed a complaint alleging that the second respondent, her employer and Managing Director of a company, had taken inappropriate pictures of her while she was unwell, blackmailed her, and repeatedly raped her under threat of publishing the pictures and terminating her employment. She also alleged that after her marriage was fixed, the second respondent contacted her fiancé and sent nude pictures to defame her. The second respondent sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court, claiming that the relationship was consensual and that a settlement had been reached in July 2016, with a written agreement and payment of a large sum. The High Court, relying on the settlement and the exceptions in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, quashed the FIR. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by conducting a roving inquiry and making findings on contested facts, such as the consensual nature of the relationship and the validity of the settlement, before the investigation was complete. The Court noted that the appellant alleged the settlement was obtained under threat and coercion, which required investigation. The Court also referred to Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which raises a presumption of absence of consent in rape cases when the woman states she did not consent. The Supreme Court restored the FIR and directed the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by conducting a roving inquiry and quashing FIR before completion of investigation - Serious allegations of rape, blackmail, and threat made by informant - Settlement document alleged to be obtained under threat and coercion - Held that such matters require investigation and cannot be decided at the threshold (Paras 13-14). B) Evidence Act - Presumption as to absence of consent in rape prosecution - Section 114-A - Where sexual intercourse is proved and woman states she did not consent, court shall presume absence of consent - This presumption reinforces the need for trial rather than quashing at initial stage (Para 13). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Power of High Court under Section 482 - Exercise of power depends on contents of complaint and material on record - Each case to be decided on its own facts - Precedent in Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 2019 distinguished as not applicable (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC on the ground of settlement and consensual relationship, without allowing investigation to proceed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and restored the FIR No. CR-I-60-2017 registered at Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City. The investigating agency was directed to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- Section 482 CrPC
- scope of quashing FIR
- presumption under Section 114-A Evidence Act
- consensual sex vs. rape
- settlement under threat and coercion
