Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal challenging Telangana High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR filed against the accused in a false promise for marraige case for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the Division Bench of Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ., set aside the impugned judgment and quashed the FIR against the accused. Perusing the facts of the case, the Court opined that allowing prosecution of the accused to continue in the impugned FIR would be nothing short of a travesty of justice in addition to being a gross abuse of the process of Court. The Court held that the impugned FIR was 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”.
Background:
The de-facto complainant filed a complaint before Police Station Madhapur alleging inter alia that during an enquiry on a previous complaint, the accused and his mother arrived at a resolution with the complainant and the accused agreed to marry the complainant and get the marriage registered at the registration office or the Arya Samaj Mandir. An agreement to this effect was drawn up which was signed by the accused the complainant.
However, it was alleged that soon after afore-stated events, the accused and his mother started showing reluctance to the marriage on one pretext or the other and stopped communicating with the complainant or her family about wedding arrangements, etc. It was further alleged that accused then started mentally harassing the complainant with reference to the complaint, she had filed at the police station. When she expressed a desire to discuss the wedding arrangements and resolve the issues about the family’s cold behaviour, the accused went to the complainant’s house on 24-6-2021 and compelled her to indulge in sexual intercourse without ever intending to go through with the marriage ceremonies. Thereafter the complaint went the next day to the police station and reported that the accused appellant was not keeping his word and was showing reluctance in abiding by the terms of the agreement.
Furthermore, it was stated that complainant expressed her apprehension to the accused appellant that she had doubts about his intent to marry her. She shared the details of the Telangana State Government’s marriage registration procedure with the accused, but he refused to pay any heed to her. The complainant even told the accused that in case he fails to secure a slot for marriage registration, that would be inferred that the accused does not intend to marry her. Subsequently, the accused allegedly blocked the de-facto complainant’s calls and messages and absconded. Thus, the Police Station Madhapur (Guttala), Cyberabad registered a FIR on 29-6-2021.
The complainant filed another complaint in 2022 before Police Station Vanitha, Kozhikode City, Kerala, alleging that she had come in contact with the accused via Bharat Matrimony and they agreed to marry each other. However, the accused appellant avoided the scheduled date and returned to the United States of America without marrying her. Upon coming back to India, he established sexual relations with the complainant against her wishes. These incidents allegedly occurred on 4 occasions in May 2021. Thereafter, the accused refused to marry her saying that she belonged to a lower caste. Since the Police Station Vanitha at Kozhikode City, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the said FIR, the same was forwarded to the Police Station Madhapur, District Cyberabad where the impugned FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
Aggrieved with the afore-stated FIR, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashment of the same; however, his petition was dismissed.
Court’s Assessment:
While perusing the impugned FIR, the Court took note that in 2019, the complainant had filed a similar complaint at the Police Station, Osmania University, Hyderabad City accusing an Assistant Professor for identical allegations of cheating and sexual exploitation on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
The Court also took note of the contention raised by the accused the complainant is habitual of lodging such complaints and has falsely implicated the accused appellant in the present FIR for oblique motives.
Upon perusing the allegations as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet placed on record by the accused, the Court found no prima facie material on record to substantiate the allegations of cheating or sexual intercourse under a false promise of marriage against the accused. The Court pointed out that the allegations levelled in the both the FIRs are inherently contradictory. The Court pointed out that in in FIR of 2021, the complainant has only alleged about a single sexual encounter. On the contrary, in the impugned FIR of 2022, 4-5 such incidents had been referenced each of which ante-date the 2021 FIR. It is thus inherently improbable that the complainant would have forgotten or omitted to mention these incidents of sexual intercourse made under a false promise of marriage while filing the earlier FIR.
The Court noted that the complainant had filed a similar FIR against an Assistant Professor of Osmania University, where she was studying.
Furthermore, it was pointed out that the chats which were placed on record along with the additional documents, the complainant, has admitted that she was manipulative. The Court opined that the chats depicted the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the complainant who appeared to be having manipulative and vindictive tendency.
Thus, the accused 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 complainant. 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 complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community. Furthermore, in the FIR on 2021, the complainant did not make a whisper about the accused dumping her on the ground of her caste.
Therefore, with the afore-stated assessment, the Court deemed it fit to quash the FIR and the consequent proceedings against the accused.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1258 Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
