Like Victim, Rape Accused Must Be Protected Against False Implication As It Can Cause Equal Distress, Humiliation & Damage - SC
The Supreme Court has observed that like a victim in a rape case, the accused must also be equally protected against false implication as it can lead to distress, humiliation and damage to the accused.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice JB Pardiwala observed:
"It cannot be lost sight of that rape causes the greatest distress and humiliation to the victim but at the same time a false allegation of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation and damage to the accused as well. The accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication, particularly where a large number of accused are involved."
Further, it was said that Courts are empowered to go beyond the case stage and take into account the broader context in which a case was initiated. When an accused person approaches a Court seeking to quash an FIR or Criminal Proceedings against them on grounds of it being frivolous and motivated by personal vengeance, then it is the duty of the Court to consider the overall circumstances leading to the initiation or registration of the case, as well as the materials collected during the investigation. Such measures should be taken to ensure the FIR was not lodged due to personal vengeance, the Apex Court emphasised.
“Whenever an accused comes before the Court...to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely…Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines”, the Bench held.
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the Appellant and Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad appeared for the Respondent.
A victim filed an FIR in 2012 alleging that the Appellant and two other accused persons forcibly took possession of her land and threatened her when they were asked to vacate. In 2018, the Victim was asked to meet with one of the accused persons and his advocate, where they raped the victim. Later, they refused to vacate the land and repeatedly raped her by blackmailing her. The Appellant was named in the FIR, but no particular allegations were levelled against him. The Appeal was filed by the Appellant/original Accused no. 2 in FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 376-D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) challenging the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court rejected the Appellant’s petition and declined to quash the FIR.
The Court noted that no allegations of rape or criminal intimidation were levelled against the Appellant. If the FIR does not disclose anything incriminating against the Appellant even after the investigation, continuing the criminal proceedings against him would be a gross abuse of the process of law, the Bench stated.
In this context, the Court held, “We take notice of the fact that in the entire FIR there is not a whisper of any allegation of rape or criminal intimidation against the appellant herein. All that appears on a plain reading of the FIR is that the appellant has been named as the accused No. 2…If the FIR does not disclose anything against the appellant and even at the end of the investigation, if nothing incriminating has surfaced against the appellant herein, then the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law”.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the High Court should have investigated the specific accusations made against the Appellant before dismissing his petition. The Court held that since the FIR did not contain any specific allegations against him, the High Court should not have rejected his petition by way of a cryptic order.
“We are of the view that in the absence of any particular allegation in the FIR against the appellant herein, the High Court should not have declined to quash the FIR by way of a cryptic order saying that the appellant has criminal antecedents and the FIR prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offences. The High Court should have first inquired as to what type of allegations have been levelled against the appellant. By just naming the appellant in the FIR, offence cannot be said to have been committed by him”, the Bench asserted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR against the Appellant.
Cause Title: Haji Iqbal @ Bala Through S.P.O.A v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2023 INSC 686)
