FIR Is A Bundle Of Lies; Accused Justified In Backing Out From Proposed Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case
The appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against an order whereby the petition seeking quashing of the FIR registered against the accused appellant was rejected.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
Calling the FIRs registered against a man involving allegations of rape on false promise of marriage and SC-ST Act violations a bundle of lies, the Supreme Court has held that the accused was justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behavior and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against an order of the Telangana High Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was rejected.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant.”
“The impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant. The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy”, it added.
AOR Amish Aggarwala represented the Appellant while Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The de-facto complainant i.e., second respondent filed a complaint alleging that she had earlier filed a complaint against the accused appellant, and during the enquiry, the appellant approached the police station along with his mother. A resolution was arrived at between the parties in the presence of the Inspector of Police to the effect that the appellant would marry the de facto complainant and get the marriage registered. However, the accused appellant and his mother started showing reluctance to the marriage. In the FIR registered in the year 2021, it was alleged that the accused appellant also compelled her to indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending to go through with the marriage ceremonies.
In the second FIR, it was alleged by the complainant that she had come into contact with the accused appellant through a matrimonial website whilst the accused appellant was residing in the United States of America. They agreed to marry each other, and the appellant established sexual relations with her against her wishes. Thereafter, the accused appellant refused to marry her, saying that she belonged to a lower caste. A case came to be registered under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act. Aggrieved, the accused appellant preferred a quashing petition under Section 482 of CrPC but the High Court asked the Investigating Officer to go ahead with the investigation. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was no prima facie material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the accused appellant. The allegations levelled in the FIR registered in the year 2021 and the impugned FIR of 2022 were at great variance, and the inherent contradictions in the two reports over the same subject matter couldn’t be reconciled. The Bench noted that the de facto complainant is a highly educated woman aged 30 years. In the FIR of 2021, she had only alleged a single sexual encounter and on the contrary, in the impugned FIR of 2022, 4-5 such incidents had been referenced, each of which was ante-dated.
The Court further noticed that the de-facto complainant had filed a similar FIR against an Assistant Professor of Osmania University, where she was studying. Reference was made to the chats where the complainant admitted that she was manipulative and was trying to “get a green card holder”. She had also mentioned that she would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to “invest on the next victim”. She also stated that she was using the accused appellant. As per the Bench, these chats depicted the stark reality about the behavioral pattern of the de facto complainant, who appeared to have manipulative and vindictive tendencies.
“Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community”, the Bench stated.
In the FIR of 2021, the complainant had not even made a whisper about the accused appellant dumping her on the ground of her caste. “The impugned FIR No. 103 of 2022 is nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant. The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy”, the Bench said while allowing the appeal and quashing the FIRs in question.
Cause Title: Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 790)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Amish Aggarwala, Advocate Kuldeep Jauhari,
Respondent: Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw, AOR Devina Sehgal, Advocate Yatharth Kansal