Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently allowed a plea by a man to quash the proceedings initiated in a rape case lodged against him 34 years after the alleged incident by the woman victim who claimed to be a minor at the time of offence.

Court has said there was no explanation as to why the woman kept silence for such a long period time, while the man, on his part, had treated the son born of the relationship and had extended cash and all other facilities to him.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal filed by one Suresh Garodia against the single bench order of the Gauhati High Court dismissing his application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

In the case at hand, the magistrate took cognisance of the offence, rejecting the closure report filed by the Investigating Officer in the FIR lodged on December 4, 2016 with Bharalumukh police station, District Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

The woman alleged that when she was 15 years of age the appellant committed rape on her in 1982 and as a result of which she gave birth to a child on April 7, 1983. 

Garodia claimed the present case was nothing else but an abuse of the process of law and the FIR was filed after 34 years only in order to blackmail him.

The counsel for the state as well as the woman-complainant opposed the plea, contending the prima facie the statement of the prosecutrix has to be taken on face value. Since the de facto complainant stated in the FIR that she was a minor at the time of the commission of offence, even if it is said to be consensual, the offence under Section 376 IPC would be made out, they said.

After going through the report of the Investigating Officer, the court noted the son of the prosecutrix even admitted that the appellant was providing cash money and other facilities to him as his son. The final report stated that only on account of greed for property of the appellant-the prosecutrix, in connivance with her son, has filed the FIR after a period of 34 years. The IO opined that the case was of a civil nature and therefore the appellant should be discharged from the said case. 

"No doubt that the Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 190 CrPC, is not bound to accept the final report of the IO. However, if the Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the IO, 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 cognisance despite the negative report submitted by the IO. Nothing of that sort has been done by the Magistrate in his order dated 4th July 2017," the bench said.

Referring to the judgement in case of 'State of Haryana and Others Vs Bhajan Lal and Others' (1992), the bench pointed out that a caution was given that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

"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 material on record shows that the relationship was consensual, inasmuch as the son who is born out of the said relationship has been treated by the appellant as his son and all the facilities, including cash money, have been provided to him," the bench said.

It further said the finding of the IO that the case was filed only for the greed for the property of the appellant cannot be said to be erroneous. 

Cause Title: Suresh Garodia vs. The State of Assam And Another