Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case As FIR Was Lodged 34 Years After The Alleged Incident

“We find that lodging a case after 34 years and that too on the basis of a bald statement that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of offence, could itself be a ground to quash the proceedings. No explanation whatsoever is given in the FIR as to why the prosecutrix was keeping silent for a long period of 34 years”, the Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.

In arriving at the decision, the Bench further considered that the son born out of the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant had been treated by the latter as his son and all facilities, including cash money, had been provided to him. It showed that the relationship was consensual, the court said.

The case had arisen out of a complaint given by the prosecutrix in 2016, alleging that when she was 15 years of age, she was raped by the appellant and a son was born out of the relationship in 1983.

After completion of investigation, a final report was filed, wherein the Investigating Officer mentioned that the appellant was found to be the biological father of the prosecutrix's son. It was also mentioned that the appellant had provided cash money and other facilities to his son, however, due to greed for his property, the prosecutrix and her son had lodged the FIR after 34 years.

The concerned Magistrate rejected the final report and directed that cognizance be taken on the basis of the police report. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, but was denied relief. Thereafter, he approached the Supreme Court, contending that the FIR was lodged to blackmail him and was an abuse of the process of law.

After going through the record, the Supreme Court Bench noted that in the statement given by the prosecutrix's son, it was admitted that the appellant was providing him cash money and other facilities.

It was held that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the Investigating Officer's final report, however, reasons for rejecting the same ought to have been given.

“…if the learned Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O.”.

Referring to State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, the Bench further observed that although power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly, the present case fell under categories 5 (inherently improbable allegations) and 7 (presence of malafides) culled out in the judgment. It opined that the finding of the Investigating Officer that the FIR was lodged only out of greed for the appellant's property could not be said to be erroneous.

Arriving at a conclusion that continuation of the proceedings would lead to nothing else, but abuse of process of law, the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate were quashed.

Appearance: Advocate Ibad Mushtaq (for appellant); Advocate Diksha Rai (for State); Advocate S Janani (for prosecutrix/de facto complainant)

Case Title: Suresh Garodia v. The State of Assam and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 185/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 40