- In a controversial move, the Hon’ble Apex Court has invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in Jatin Agarwal vs. State of Telangana to quash a rape case as the Court has noted that the complainant has married the appellant/accused.
- It is important to note that article 142 of the Constitution provides that the Apex Court may, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, pass any decree or order which it considers necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter that is pending before it, and this decree or order is enforceable throughout the territory of India.
- In the instant case, an FIR was lodged against the appellant by respondent 2, alleging that she met the accused through a matrimonial site (Bharat Matrimony), and thereafter, they remained in touch with each other. It was alleged that on a false promise of marriage, the accused had made physical relations with her.
- But since the appellant/accused later refused to marry her, she lodged an FIR under sections 417, 420 and 376 of IPC. It is not, however, disputed that the appellant/accused and the respondent 2 had gotten married on 23-09-2020, for which a marriage certificate had also been issued on the same date.
- The appellant had then filed an application for quashing the FIR under section 482 of CrPC. The HC, however, rejected this application. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant/accused had filed an appeal by way of special leave (SLP) before the Apex Court.
- The Court noted that the respondent 2, Ms. T. Harshini had appeared through video conferencing. She made a statement before the Hon’ble Court that she is now happily married to the appellant and does not wish to press the FIR against him.
- Thus, considering the facts of the case and also that the respondent 2 had herself admitted that she was married and was living happily with the appellant, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and for the purpose of doing complete justice in the matter, quashed the FIR which was filed by respondent 2.
- However, in the case of Shimbhu vs State of Haryana AIR 2014 SC, the Apex Court had clearly stated that rape is a non-compoundable offence and is an offence against the society. It is not a matter to be left to the parties to compromise and settle. The Court, in all its wisdom, had also observed that the Courts cannot always be assured that the consent given by the victim is genuine, as there is every chance that she might have been pressured by the convicts. The Court had also observed that accepting this contention would put an additional burden on the victim.
- It is also noteworthy that in the case of State of MP vs Madanlal AIR 2015 SC the Apex Court had held that in a case of rape or attempt to rape, the conception of compromise can under no circumstances be really thought of.
- While the circumstances of the present case certainly are different, as the Apex Court had observed in Shimbhu’s case, the Courts can never be sure that the victim’s consent is genuine. All we can hope for is that the perpetrators do not use this order as a shield to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
