Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on January 3, 2024 quashed a criminal case lodged by a banking job aspirant against a man, running a coaching institute, for allegedly committing rape upon her, finding that the relationship between them was consensual which culminated in marriage.

"The allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnisation of marriage. Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant," a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said.

Allowing an appeal by Ajeet Singh, the court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order of December 7, 2016 and quashed the criminal case lodged at Police Station Naka in Lucknow.

The FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC in the case was lodged on a complaint made on May 27, 2015.

It was alleged by the 25-year-old woman that the appellant maintained a physical relationship with her by giving a false promise of marriage. She claimed that a certificate of marriage was prepared by the appellant from Arya Samaj Mandir to put pressure on her. 

It was alleged that the appellant left the victim in her house on April 22, 2015 and has never returned to take her back. 

The court, however, noted the notice issued by the advocate for the victim clearly admits that the marriage between the appellant and the victim was solemnized on February 16, 2015. A copy of the statement of the victim recorded on November 23, 2016 by an officer of Police Station Naka, Lucknow, is placed on record, in which she stated that the appellant forced her to have a physical relationship with her in a hotel in Delhi on December 4, 2014. Thereafter, the physical relationship was maintained by the appellant. 

She stated that on February 16, 2015, the appellant took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and solemnised the marriage where no other person was present. She stated that thereafter, they stayed in a hotel till February 19, 2015. In March 2015, she stayed with the appellant for three to four days. From the end of April 2015, the appellant stopped attending to her phone calls. 

Though the police initially claimed the marriage certificate produced was genuine and that the petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights was pending. 

Subsequently, the successor of the Circle Officer claimed that the marriage ceremony between the appellant and the victim was a farce made only to enable the appellant to establish sexual relations with the victim.

The court, however, noted in the legal notice sent by the victim's advocate it was alleged the victim was turned away from the matrimonial home by the appellant on the ground that his father wanted a sum of Rs 50 lakhs. By the said notice, the victim called upon the appellant to arrange “Vidai”. Within five days of sending the notice, on May 6, 2015, the appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the victim.

After finding that the relationship was consensual, the bench said the Supreme Court's decision in 'State of Haryana and Ors Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors' (1992) would apply here and a case was made out for quashing the FIR.

 

Cause Title: Ajeet Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors