Subsequent Refusal To Marry Would Not Be Sufficient: SC Quashes Rape Case After It Finds Prima Facie Case Of Long Consensual Physical Relationship

The Court set aside the impugned order of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing an FIR against him for offences under Sections 376 and 313 of the IPC. The Court noted that the complainant referred to the accused as her husband and alleged rape on the pretext of a promise of marriage.

A Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal held, “The subsequent refusal to marry the complainant would not be sufficient, in view of the facts and circumstances obtained in the case at hand, by any stretch of imagination to draw existence of a prima facie case that the complainant had given consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, so as to accuse the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375, IPC."

AOR Devvrat represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Ajay Kumar Misra appeared for the respondents.

The complainant alleged that the appellant had allegedly established a physical relationship with her without her consent by deceiving her with a promise that he would marry her. In the same complaint, it was also alleged that the appellant started living with the complainant as her husband.

The High Court held that there could be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence was not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the FIR or if there existed any statutory restriction operating against the power of the Police to investigate a case. An appeal was filed to challenge the decision of the High Court.

The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka (2019), wherein it was held that “It is, however, difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for eight years, as “rape” especially in the face of the complainant's own allegation that they lived together as man and wife.”

The Bench held that the High Court was “palpably wrong” in not considering the question of whether the allegations in the complaint revealed a 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 revealed a case of consensual sex.

“Firstly, it is to be noted that the subject FIR itself would reveal that there occurred a delay of more than 5 years for registering the FIR; secondly, the very case of the complainant, as revealed from the FIR, would go to show that they lived for a long period as man and wife and thirdly, the facts and circumstances obtained from the subject FIR and other materials on record would reveal absence of a prima facie case that the complainant viz., respondent No. 4 had given her consent for sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court held that “the allegations in the FIR would not constitute a prima facie case of false promise to marry from the inception with a view to establish sexual relationship and instead they would reveal a prima facie case of long consensual physical relationship, during which the complainant addressed the appellant as her husband.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 782)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Devvrat; Advocates Swati Setia, Harshita Sharma, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Subas Ray, Pabitra Pal Choudhary and Nitin Jain

Respondents: Senior Advocate Ajay Kumar Misra; AOR Garvesh Kabra and Shantanu Kumar; Advocates Harshita Raghuvanshi, Pooja Kabra and Anurag Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment