In a recent verdict, the Supreme Court has put an end to legal proceedings against an individual accused of raping a minor. The court’s decision was prompted by the fact that the First Information Report (FIR) was filed a staggering 34 years after the alleged incident, solely based on a bare statement asserting the prosecutrix’s age at the time of the offense.
The bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, emphasized that filing a case after such a prolonged period, particularly on the grounds of the prosecutrix being a minor, without any explanation for the lengthy silence, could be a valid reason to quash the proceedings. The court questioned the lack of details in the FIR regarding the prolonged silence of 34 years.
Furthermore, the judges took into consideration the treatment of the son born from the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused. The fact that the accused acknowledged the child as his own, providing financial support and other facilities, indicated a consensual relationship, according to the court.
The case originated from a complaint lodged in 2016, alleging that the appellant raped the prosecutrix when she was 15 years old, resulting in the birth of a son in 1983.
After the investigation concluded, the final report mentioned the appellant as the biological father of the prosecutrix’s son. It also asserted that the FIR was filed after 34 years due to greed for the appellant’s property. Despite the Investigating Officer’s report, the Magistrate rejected it and ordered further action based on the police report. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, sought relief from the High Court, which was denied, leading him to approach the Supreme Court, claiming the FIR was an attempt to blackmail him and an abuse of the legal process.
Upon scrutinizing the records, the Supreme Court observed that the Magistrate, while not obligated to accept the Investigating Officer’s final report, should have provided reasons for rejecting it. Quoting State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, the bench concluded that the case fell under categories 5 (inherently improbable allegations) and 7 (presence of malafides). The court agreed with the Investigating Officer’s finding that the FIR was filed out of greed for the appellant’s property.
Concluding that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process, the Supreme Court quashed the orders of both the High Court and the Magistrate in the case of Suresh Garodia v. The State of Assam and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 185/2024.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
