Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Maliciously Instituted Rape Case

Judgement Given On : 15/06/2023

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the respondent, alleging forcible rape by the petitioner, Mohd. Faheem Khan. According to the complainant, she had been subjected to sexual assault by the petitioner, who also threatened her with harm. She claimed that they had been in a physical relationship for four years and that her request for marriage had been denied, resulting in physical assault.

The Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel raised several significant points during the proceedings. Firstly, attention was drawn to the considerable delay in filing the FIR, as the alleged incident had occurred four years prior, with the FIR only being registered on October 6, 2022. Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel countered the allegations, asserting that the complainant had a history of making false accusations, having previously filed complaints against two other individuals in 2013 and 2019. The petitioner relied on the judgment of Manoranjan Goshwami Vs. State Of Maharashtra to support the plea for the quashing of the FIR.

The Respondent’s Arguments

In response, the respondent’s counsel contended that the essential elements of the offense of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were present in the complainant’s case. Furthermore, it was argued that the petitioner was unable to defend himself, as per the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others. The counsel also pointed out that, prima facie, the offense had been made out against the petitioner based on the statements of the complainant and witnesses.

Observations of the Hon’ble Court

After carefully examining the evidence on record and considering the statements of both parties, the Madhya Pradesh High Court made the following crucial observations:

  1. The petitioner and the complainant had known each other for four years and had engaged in a consensual physical relationship.
  2. The written complaint did not allege that the petitioner had promised to marry the complainant before engaging in sexual intercourse.
  3. There was no mention of the petitioner making such a promise before initiating the physical relationship.
  4. The complaint stated that the petitioner took the complainant to a house for a conversation, where the alleged rape occurred.
  5. No complaint had been made at the time of these alleged incidents, despite multiple subsequent instances of physical intimacy between the parties.

The court referenced the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajanlal and Others regarding the categories of cases where constitutional powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) could be exercised. The court concluded that the present case fell under the category where “a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malice and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to a private and personal grudge.”

Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR against the petitioner, Mohd. Faheem Khan. This decision sets an important precedent for cases where criminal proceedings are maliciously instituted with ulterior motives, underscoring the court’s commitment to safeguarding the principles of justice and fairness.