Brief Facts
- The appellant challenged the order of the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed his petition to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 376/506 IPC. Complainant filed an FIR in 2016 alleging she was raped by the appellant in 1982, resulting in the birth of a child in 1983. The Appellant argued that the FIR, filed 34 years later, was a baseless attempt to blackmail him over a property dispute.
- The investigation found that the son acknowledged the appellant’s support and provided for him. The Investigation Agency filed the negative final report as opined that the dispute is of civil nature. However , the Magistrate Court rejected the Negative Final Report and took the cognizance against the Appellant.
Issues
- Whether the delay of 34 years in lodging the FIR could be grounds to quash the criminal proceedings?
- Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, especially in light of the allegations of a civil nature (property dispute) and the passage of 34 years before filing the FIR?
- Whether Magistrate Court is required to assign the reason for not agreeing with the conclusion of investigation?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the Petition and quash the proceedings. The Court took note of the delay in FIR, conclusion of the investigation agency and improbability of the allegations.
- We find that lodging a case after 34 years and that too on the basis of a bald statement that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of offence, could itself be a ground to quash the proceedings. No explanation whatsoever is given in the FIR as to why the prosecutrix was keeping silent for a long period of 34 years. The material on record shows that the relationship was consensual, inasmuch as the son who is born out of the said relationship has been treated by the appellant as his son and all the facilities, including cash money, have been provided to him.
- We find that the finding of the I.O. that the case was filed only for the greed
- for the property of the appellant herein cannot be said to be erroneous. We find that the continuation of the proceedings would lead to nothing else but an abuse of process of law.
- No doubt that the learned Magistrate, while exercising his powers under Section 190 Cr.P.C., is not bound to accept the final report of the I.O. However, if the learned Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O. Nothing of that sort has been done by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 4th July 2017.
Relevant Paras
- 9, 13, 14