The Supreme Court quashed a rape case after noting that both the parties being adults had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of a promise to marry.

The Apex Court was considering a Transfer Petition seeking the transfer of proceedings in a criminal case registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 read with Section 142 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The Division Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal asserted, “As far as the FIR No. 331 of 2018 is concerned, as the same could not be subject matter of settlement between the parties, on examination of the contents of the FIR, we have already opined that no case for proceeding under Section 376 and 506 IPC is made out.”

Advocate Yatendra Sharma represented the Peititoner while AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah represented the Respondent.

Facts

In this matter, the money transactions between the parties stood settled on payment of Rs 25 lakh by the respondent to the petitioner through Demand Drafts as mentioned in the Settlement Agreement. However, the matter also involved an FIR registered by the petitioner against the respondent under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Reasoning

On a perusal of the contents of the FIR, the Bench noticed that the parties with consent had intimate relations and made certain financial transactions between them. The relations continued for 4-5 years, as alleged, due to not fulfilling the promise of marriage.

“Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry”, the Bench clarified. Referring to its judgment in XXXX v. State of M.P. (2024) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Bench stated, “This Court has consistently opined that under these admitted facts no case is made out under Section 376 IPC.”

In the cheque bounce matter, the Bench disposed of the cases by ordering that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. As far as the issue of application filed under Section 376 IPC was concerned, the Bench held that no case for proceeding under Section 376 and 506 IPC was made out. Thus, the Bench quashed the aforesaid FIR and all subsequent proceedings.

Disposing of the Petition, the Bench concluded, “Though the parties have mentioned their names in the petition, however considering the fact that the issue considered by this Court in the present order is also pertaining to quashing of FIR under Section 376 and 506 IPC, we deem it appropriate to mask the names in our order. Hence, the petitioner/complainant has been named as “ABC”, whereas the respondent has been named as “XYZ”.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1052)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Yatendra Sharma, Apoorva Sharma, AOR Dhawesh Pahuja

Respondent: AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah, AOR

Click here to read/download Judgment