XXXX versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 06-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 309 : 2024 INSC 181
XXXX 
v. 
State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023)
06 March 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant 
u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered against him u/ss. 
376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC.
Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 376 (2)(n) and 506 – Punishment for 
committing rape repeatedly on the same woman – Punishment 
for Criminal intimidation – Complainant’s case against the 
appellant alleging rape on false pretext of marriage; and that 
the appellant assured that he would marry her and take care 
of her daughter if she divorced her husband – However, the 
appellant refused to marry – Registration of FIR u/ss. 376 (2)
(n) and 506 – Petition for quashing of FIR by the appellant – 
Dismissed by the High Court – Correctness :
Held: From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which FIR 
was registered and the statement  recorded by the complainant, it is 
evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations 
between the parties started – In any case, even on the dates when 
the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she 
was already married – She falsely claimed that divorce from her 
earlier marriage took place in 2018 – However, the fact remains that 
decree of divorce was passed two years later – Complainant was 
a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant – She was 
matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences 
of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during 
subsistence of her earlier marriage – In fact, it was a case of 
betraying her husband – Furthermore, the prosecutrix admitted that 
even after the appellant shifted to other State for his job, he used 
to come and stay with the family and they were living as husband 
and wife – Also appellant’s stand that he had advanced loan to the 
prosecutrix which was not returned back – Thus, not a case where 
the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship with 
310
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the appellant under misconception – Impugned order passed by 
the High Court set aside – FIR registered u/s. 376(2)(n) and 506 
and all subsequent proceedings thereto quashed. [Paras 8, 9.1, 10]
Case Law Cited
Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2023] 1 SCR 
1061 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 89 – relied on.
Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2013] 1 SCR 
504 : (2013) 9 SCC 293 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Rape of a woman on false pretext of marriage; Quashing of FIR; 
Consequences of the moral and immoral acts; Consent for sexual 
relationship under misconception.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3431 
of 2023
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2022 of the High Court of 
M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in MCRC No.15992 of 2021
Appearances for Parties
Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Adv. for the Appellant.
D. S. Parmar, AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Saurabh Singh, Santosh 
Narayan Singh, Mohd. Faisal, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
The appellant in the present case is aggrieved of the order1 passed 
by the High Court2 whereby a petition3 filed by him under Section 
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR4 was dismissed.
1	
Order dated 01.08.2022
2	
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
3	
M.CR.C. No. 15992 of 2021
4	
FIR No. 52 dated 11.12.2020 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Dist. Satna, (M.P.) under Sections 
376(2)(n) and 506 IPC
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
311
XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
2.	
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR in the 
case in hand, which was got registered by respondent No.2/
complainant is nothing else but an abuse of process of law. The 
complainant was a married lady having a grown up daughter of 
15 years of age living with her parents. Claiming that in the same 
house, the appellant was having physical relations with her with the 
consent of her parents and daughter will be hard to believe that too 
when she was already married. There could not be any question 
of promise to marry given by the appellant to her at that stage. 
There are large discrepancies in the complaint made to the police 
on the basis of which the FIR was registered if considered in the 
light of the state

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