MISS XYZ versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 25-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1098
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
MISS XYZ
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR
 (Criminal Appeal No.1619 of 2019)
OCTOBER 25, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT,  INDU MALHOTRA AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Appellant-
informant was the Personal Assistant of the 2nd respondent-
Managing Director of the Company – In her complaint she alleged
that when she was not well, the 2nd respondent started visiting her
residence and when she was in sleep, he took inappropriate pictures
of her and committed rape on her under the threat of termination of
employment and publication of her pictures – It was further alleged
that the 2nd respondent on coming to know that appellant’s marriage
was fixed, contacted the person with whom her marriage was fixed
and informed him that the appellant is not of good character and
she had physical relationship with him and  other boys – 2nd
respondent also allegedly sent him the nude/inappropriate pictures
of the appellant – Case registered against the 2nd respondent for
the alleged offence u/ss.376, 499 and 506(2), IPC – High Court
quashed the proceedings against the 2nd respondent – On appeal,
held: High Court exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC
– Even before the investigation is completed by the investigating
agency, the High Court entertained the Writ Petition, and by virtue
of interim order granted by the High Court, further investigation
was stalled – Having regard to the allegations made by the appellant,
whether the 2nd respondent by clicking inappropriate pictures of
the appellant has blackmailed her or not, and further the 2nd
respondent has continued to interfere by calling the person with
whom appellant’s marriage was fixed or not are the matters for
investigation – In view of the serious allegations made in the
complaint, the High Court should not have made roving inquiry
while considering the application filed u/s.482, CrPC – High Court
got carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at between
the parties, and recorded finding that the physical relationship of
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1098
1098
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1099
the appellant with the 2nd respondent was consensual – When it is
the allegation of the appellant, that such document itself is obtained
under threat and coercion,it is a matter to be investigated –
Impugned order set aside – 2nd respondent to co-operate with the
investigation – Till then no coercive action be taken against him –
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 499 & 506(2) – Evidence Act, 1872 –
s.114-A.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114-A – Absence of consent in certain
prosecution for rape – Presumption of – Held: Where sexual
intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it
was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped,
and such woman states in her evidence that she did not consent, the
court shall presume that she did not consent.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court exceeded the scope of its
jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 CrPC, and quashed the
proceedings. Even before the investigation is completed by the
investigating agency, the High Court entertained the Writ
Petition, and by virtue of interim order granted by the High Court,
further investigation was stalled. Having regard to the allegations
made by the appellant/informant, whether the 2nd respondent by
clicking inappropriate pictures of the appellant has blackmailed
her or not, and further the 2nd respondent has continued to
interfere by calling ‘SM’ or not are the matters for investigation.
In view of the serious allegations made in the complaint, the High
Court should not have made a roving inquiry while considering
the application filed under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court
got carried away by the agreement/settlement arrived at, between
the parties, and recorded a finding that the physical relationship
of the appellant with the 2nd respondent was consensual. When it
is the allegation of the appellant, that such document itself is
obtained under threat and coercion,it is a matter to be
investigated. Further, the complaint of the appellant about
interference by the 2nd respondent by calling ‘SM’ and further
interference is also a matter for  investigation. By looking at the
contents of the complaint and the serious allegations made against
the 2nd respondent, the High Court committed error in quashing
the proceedings. Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
MISS XYZ v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR
A
B
C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.