Date of the Judgment: January 9, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 38
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a criminal case for rape continue if the complainant, who was in a prior relationship with the accused, now states that the relationship was consensual and she no longer wishes to pursue the case? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case where a couple, who had been in a relationship and later married, had a falling out. The court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of not forcing a complainant to pursue a case they no longer wish to pursue.
The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Case Background
The appellant, Mohd. Julfukar, and the complainant were in a relationship. The relationship was not supported by the complainant’s parents. Despite this, they decided to live together. The complainant’s father filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand, alleging that his daughter was illegally detained by the appellant. The High Court, after interacting with the complainant, who stated she was an adult and wished to live with the appellant as her husband, dismissed the petition on July 24, 2018. Subsequently, the couple resided together for some time but later separated due to disputes. The complainant then filed an FIR against the appellant for offences under Sections 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2018 | Appellant and complainant in a relationship against her parents’ wishes, decide to live together. |
| July 24, 2018 | High Court of Uttarakhand dismisses Habeas Corpus petition filed by complainant’s father, stating the complainant is an adult and wishes to live with the appellant. |
| After July 24, 2018 | Appellant and complainant reside together for a considerable time. |
| Later | Appellant and complainant separate due to disputes. |
| 2019 | Complainant files FIR against the appellant for offences under Sections 376, 377 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| September 7, 2022 | Appellant and complainant finalize their divorce through Talaq-E-Khula. |
| January 16, 2023 | Complainant files an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating she does not wish to proceed with the case. |
| January 9, 2024 | Supreme Court quashes the criminal proceedings against the appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant sought to quash the criminal proceedings before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court rejected the appellant’s application. The High Court had interacted with the complainant, who stated that she was forced to marry the appellant against her wishes, and thus, the relationship was after the said marriage. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves the interpretation of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
- Section 376: “Punishment for rape.—(1) 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.” This section defines the punishment for the offense of rape.
- Section 506: “Punishment for criminal intimidation.—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 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.” This section defines the punishment for the offense of criminal intimidation.
Arguments
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:
- Appellant’s Argument:
- The appellant argued that the relationship with the complainant was consensual.
- The appellant highlighted that the complainant had initially stated before the High Court that she wanted to live with him as her husband.
- The appellant submitted that the complainant had filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court stating that she had married him of her own free will and that they had divorced mutually.
- The appellant contended that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.
- Respondent’s Argument:
- The State and the complainant initially opposed the appeal.
- The complainant had stated before the High Court that she was forced to marry the appellant.
- The respondents argued for the continuation of criminal proceedings based on the FIR filed by the complainant.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant: Relationship was consensual |
|
| Appellant: Continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process |
|
| Respondent: Criminal proceedings should continue |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be quashed, given that the complainant now states that the relationship was consensual and she does not wish to proceed with the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 should be quashed, given that the complainant now states that the relationship was consensual and she does not wish to proceed with the case. | The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings, stating that the continuation of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the interest of the complainant, who no longer wished to pursue the case. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not specifically cite any previous judgments or legal provisions other than the Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in its reasoning. The court primarily relied on the facts of the case and the complainant’s affidavit stating that she did not wish to proceed with the case.
| Authority | How it was Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court examined the ingredients of the offence under this section and found that they were not made out based on the complainant’s own statements and affidavit. |
| Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860 | The Court considered that the continuation of the proceedings under this section would not be in the interest of justice. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant: Relationship was consensual. | The Court accepted this submission based on the complainant’s affidavit stating she married the appellant of her own free will. |
| Appellant: Continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process. | The Court agreed, stating that forcing the complainant to continue with a case she no longer wished to pursue would be prejudicial to her interest. |
| Respondent: Criminal proceedings should continue. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the complainant’s affidavit indicated she did not want to proceed with the case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court noted that even if the statement made by the complainant is taken on its face value, the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860* are not made out.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The complainant’s affidavit stating that she had married the appellant of her own free will and that she did not want to proceed with the case.
- The fact that the complainant and the appellant had mutually divorced.
- The Court’s view that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be prejudicial to the interest of the complainant and not in the interest of justice.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Complainant’s Affidavit | 40% |
| Mutual Divorce | 30% |
| Interest of Justice | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Complainant files FIR under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Appellant approaches High Court to quash proceedings; High Court rejects
Appellant approaches Supreme Court
Complainant files affidavit stating she married the appellant of her own free will and does not wish to proceed with the case
Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings
The Court reasoned that even if the complainant’s initial statement before the High Court was taken at face value, the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not made out. The Court also noted that the complainant had filed an affidavit stating that she had married the appellant of her own free will and that they had mutually divorced. The Court emphasized that forcing the complainant to continue with the case would be prejudicial to her interest and not in the interest of justice.
The Supreme Court quoted the complainant’s affidavit:
“That marriage/Nikah of the Resp. no.2 and the petitioner was duly solemnized on 01.01.2018. It is further clarified that resp. no.2 had married with the petitioner as per her free will and there is no child from this Nikah.”
“That the petitioner thereafter approached the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital seeking quashing of the abovementioned criminal case.”
“That Resp. no.2 further reiterates that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and settled amicably after mediation between the parties and she wants to move on in her life and does not want to proceed further against the petitioner in the above mentioned Criminal Case No.542 of 2020 “State Vs Kari Julfukar” pending before the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District-Haridwar.”
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or minority opinions, as the decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- Criminal proceedings can be quashed if the complainant, who was in a prior relationship with the accused, states that the relationship was consensual and she no longer wishes to pursue the case.
- Courts will consider the complainant’s current stance and wishes when deciding whether to continue criminal proceedings.
- Forcing a complainant to continue with a case they no longer wish to pursue is not in the interest of justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the order of the High Court and the FIR registered against the appellant.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings, particularly those arising from personal relationships, should not continue if the complainant states that the relationship was consensual and no longer wishes to pursue the case. This decision emphasizes the importance of respecting the complainant’s autonomy and ensuring that the legal process is not used to perpetuate disputes when the parties have resolved their issues.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mohd. Julfukar vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024) highlights the importance of considering the complainant’s current stance in cases involving personal relationships. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that forcing a complainant to pursue a case they no longer wish to pursue is not in the interest of justice. The judgment reinforces the principle that the legal process should not be used to prolong disputes when the parties have resolved their issues amicably.