Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Filed After 34 Years in Suresh Garodia vs. State of Assam (2024)

Date of the Judgment: January 09, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 39

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a criminal case, specifically for rape, be sustained when the First Information Report (FIR) is filed 34 years after the alleged incident? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the complainant alleged rape committed when she was a minor, but only reported it decades later. This judgment delves into the complexities of delayed reporting and the potential for abuse of legal processes.

The Supreme Court, in this case, examined whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged on December 4, 2016, at the Bharalumukh Police Station in Guwahati, Assam. The complainant alleged that in 1982, when she was fifteen years old, the appellant, Suresh Garodia, had raped her. As a result of this alleged rape, she gave birth to a child named Jasim Ahmed Garodia on April 7, 1983. The complainant further stated that she was coerced and threatened by the accused not to lodge an FIR.

Following the FIR, the police filed a final report. However, the Magistrate rejected this report and ordered cognizance to be taken based on the police report. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Gauhati High Court, which was subsequently dismissed. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Magistrate, after reviewing the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer (I.O.), disagreed with the findings and directed that cognizance be taken under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant challenged this order by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the Gauhati High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for the offense of rape. The provision states that “Whoever, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section addresses the offense of criminal intimidation. It states that “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

These provisions are interpreted within the context of the Constitution of India, which guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial and protection against arbitrary legal proceedings.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant:

• The appellant argued that the case was an abuse of the process of law.
• The FIR was filed after a delay of 34 years, solely to blackmail the appellant.
• The order of the Magistrate taking cognizance was not sustainable in law.

Arguments of the State:

• The State vehemently opposed the appeal and supported the continuation of the criminal proceedings.

Arguments of the De Facto Complainant:

• The delay of 34 years in lodging the FIR should not be a ground for quashing the proceedings.
• The statement of the prosecutrix should be taken at face value.
• Even if the relationship was consensual, the offense under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 would be made out because the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offense.

The core of the appellant’s argument was that the case was maliciously instituted after a significant delay, indicating an ulterior motive rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. The State and the complainant, on the other hand, contended that the delay should not invalidate the case, especially given the claim of the prosecutrix being a minor at the time of the alleged offense.

The arguments also revolved around the interpretation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly regarding the legal implications of a consensual relationship when one of the parties is a minor.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the significant delay in filing the FIR, suggesting that it was an abuse of the legal process rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. This argument challenged the conventional view that a delay alone cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be quashed given the 34-year delay in filing the FIR and the circumstances surrounding the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] (Supreme Court of India): The Court referred to this case to highlight the categories of cases where the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings. The Court specifically noted categories 5 and 7 from this judgment, which deal with absurd and improbable allegations and cases with mala fide intent, respectively.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court considered this section in the context of the alleged rape and the complainant’s claim of being a minor at the time of the offense.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court considered this section in the context of the allegations of criminal intimidation.
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: The Court considered this section to determine whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the petition for quashing the criminal proceedings.

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed the submissions made by the parties as follows:

The Court’s view on the authorities was as follows:

• State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]: The Court relied on this case to justify the quashing of proceedings, finding that the present case fell under categories 5 and 7 of the guidelines laid down in the case. Specifically, the court stated: “We find that the present case would fall under category Nos. 5 and 7 of the categories of cases culled out by this Court in the said case.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Unexplained Delay: The 34-year delay in filing the FIR was a significant factor. The Court noted the absence of any explanation for this delay, raising doubts about the genuineness of the allegations.
• Abuse of Process: The Court found that the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process, given the unexplained delay and the circumstances of the case.
• Mala Fide Intent: The Court inferred a mala fide intent behind the filing of the FIR, suggesting that it was motivated by a desire to blackmail the appellant rather than seek justice.
• Consensual Relationship: The Court noted that the relationship appeared to be consensual, further undermining the credibility of the allegations.
• Magistrate’s Order: The Court criticized the Magistrate’s order for not providing sufficient reasons for disagreeing with the final report submitted by the I.O.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the delay and the circumstances, rather than on a strict interpretation of the law. The Court’s emphasis on the factual context indicates that the specific circumstances of the case played a crucial role in the decision-making process.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that the delay was due to fear or social constraints. However, these were rejected given the lack of explanation and the evidence suggesting a consensual relationship and a mala fide intent. The final decision was reached by balancing the need to protect victims of sexual assault with the need to prevent the abuse of legal processes.

The Supreme Court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that the 34-year delay, coupled with the circumstances of the case, warranted the quashing of the proceedings. The Court also noted that the Magistrate’s order lacked sufficient reasoning for disagreeing with the final report submitted by the I.O.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The 34-year delay in filing the FIR was unexplained and unreasonable.
• The case appeared to be filed with mala fide intent, possibly for blackmail.
• The relationship appeared to be consensual, undermining the claim of rape.
• The Magistrate’s order lacked sufficient reasoning for disagreeing with the final report.
• The continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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.”

“We find that the finding of the I.O. that the case was filed only for the greed for the property of the appellant herein cannot be said to be erroneous.”

“We find that the continuation of the proceedings would lead to nothing else but an abuse of process of law.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges with Justice B.R. Gavai authoring the opinion.

The judgment’s implications for future cases are significant. It sets a precedent that delayed reporting of sexual offenses, without adequate explanation, can be a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings. This decision could potentially impact future cases where there are significant delays in reporting offenses. This also highlights the need for courts to carefully scrutinize cases with long delays and to consider the possibility of mala fide intent.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. However, it reinforced the existing principle that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be used to prevent abuse of the legal process. The Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was based on the specific facts of the case, rather than on any new legal interpretation.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of balancing the rights of victims with the need to prevent misuse of the legal system. It emphasizes that while the protection of victims is paramount, the legal process should not be used to settle personal scores or for blackmail. This judgment serves as a caution against the misuse of legal provisions and the need for a fair and balanced application of the law.

Key Takeaways

• A significant delay in reporting a crime, especially sexual offenses, can be a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings if the delay is unexplained and unreasonable.
• Courts must scrutinize cases with long delays to determine if the proceedings are an abuse of the legal process.
• Mala fide intent behind lodging an FIR can be a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings.
• The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be used to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
• Magistrates must provide sufficient reasons when disagreeing with the final report submitted by the I.O.

The judgment could potentially impact future cases, especially those involving delayed reporting of sexual offenses. It highlights the need for a balanced approach, ensuring that while victims are protected, the legal process is not misused. This decision may also lead to more scrutiny of cases with long delays and a greater emphasis on the reasons for the delay.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the order dated 22nd August 2022 passed by the High Court and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 4th July 2017. The Court also allowed the appeal.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a significant and unexplained delay in filing an FIR, coupled with circumstances suggesting an abuse of process, can be a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings, even in cases involving serious offenses like rape. This judgment reinforces the principle that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

While the judgment does not introduce a new legal principle, it clarifies the application of existing principles in the context of delayed reporting of sexual offenses. It emphasizes that the courts have a duty to scrutinize such cases and to ensure that the legal process is not used for mala fide purposes. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but rather reinforces the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in Suresh Garodia vs. The State of Assam and Another, quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, holding that the 34-year delay in filing the FIR, coupled with the circumstances of the case, constituted an abuse of the legal process. The Court emphasized that the lack of explanation for the delay and the apparent mala fide intent behind the filing of the FIR warranted the quashing of the proceedings. This judgment highlights the importance of balancing the protection of victims with the need to prevent the misuse of the legal system.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Quashing of FIR
  • Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Delayed FIR
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
  • Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for cases where there is a long delay in reporting a crime?

A: This judgment highlights that a significant and unexplained delay in reporting a crime can be a valid ground for quashing criminal proceedings. Courts will scrutinize such cases to ensure the legal process is not being abused.

Q: Can a rape case be dismissed if the FIR is filed many years after the incident?

A: Yes, this judgment indicates that if there is a long delay in filing a rape case, and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay, the court may quash the proceedings. The court will also consider if there is any mala fide intent behind the delay.

Q: What is the significance of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in this case?

A: Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 gives the High Court the inherent power to prevent the abuse of the legal process. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the use of this section to quash the proceedings due to the long delay and the circumstances of the case.

Q: What should a person do if they have been a victim of a crime but delayed reporting it?

A: It is crucial to report a crime as soon as possible. If there has been a delay, it is important to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The court will consider the reasons for the delay when deciding the case.

Q: What does “mala fide intent” mean in this context?

A: “Mala fide intent” refers to the intention to use the legal process for an improper purpose, such as blackmail or revenge, rather than seeking genuine justice. In this case, the court found that the FIR was filed with mala fide intent.