(Quashing of Rape Case)
Mohd. Julfukar
…….. Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand and Another
..…. Respondent(s)
Judge: Honorable Justice B.R. Gavai
Dated: 9th January, 2024 (Judgement)
This case basically aroused out of the impugned final judgment and the order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 11th October, 2022. It challenges the judgment regarding quashing of criminal proceedings which includes allegations regarding rape or sexual assault, unnatural intercourse and criminal intimidation on the appellant, which was denied by the said high court.
In 2018, Mohd. Julfukar (appellant) and Ms. Aisha (complainant) were in a relationship and were residing together. This was against the wishes of both of their parents, so the father of the complainant filed a writ petition of Habeas Corpus (the right of a citizen to obtain writ of Habeas Corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment or detention.) against the appellant stating that he has illegally detained his daughter. It was held by the High Court that the girl, who is of 20 years of age (at that time) and has given the statement in the court that she was staying with the appellant on her on will and by her choice, is capable of taking her own decisions and therefore the court is in no place to interfere in this matter. The petition failed and was therefore dismissed by the court on 24th July, 2018.
The couple resided together for a considerate time (almost one and a year) after this but due to some conflict and grudges between the two, the complainant filed an FIR (no. 474 of 2019) before the police station of Bhagwanpur, Haridwar District for the offences punishable under section 376 (punishment for rape), 377 (unnatural offences) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code. Proceeding to this FIR, in the case of State V. Kari Julfukar 2020, the complainant gave the statement that she was married to the appellant against her wishes clearly implying that she was forced. But even though she was forced, the ingredients for Section 376 are not fulfilled as intercourse took place after the marriage.
The complainant then filed an affidavit on 16th January 2023 in the Supreme Court where the final by her was that she wants all the allegations and criminal proceedings against Mohd. Julfukar to be quashed. She also mentioned in the affidavit that the marriage was with her consent, they have no child from the marriage, they have resolved their issues by themselves and they also got divorced between this period. This same affidavit was filed in High Court as well.
Important Provisions
Provisions mentioned in the case are:-
1. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code:-
This provision is regarding the punishment for rape or sexual assault. If any person performs any sexual activity with another without their consent or free will, the person doing so is liable for punishment for rape.
India has still not recognized marital rape as a criminal offence and as mentioned by the statement of Ms. Aisha in the affidavit they got married on 1st January, 2018 and the intercourse happened thereafter. This is why Section 376 was not applicable in this case as the ingredients of the same were not fulfilled.
2. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code:-
This section talks about unnatural way of intercourse or doing the same against the order of nature.
3. Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code:-
This provision states the punishment for criminal intimidation. Criminal intimidation means, there is an intention of the offender to use threat in order to compel the person to do an act which he/she is not legally bound to do or omit from doing.
Issues Raised
1. Both the parties have mutually decided to quash any criminal proceedings on Mohd. Julfukar. Is it right for the High Court of Uttarakhand to deny this request?
2. Whether it is right for the court to drag the cases and dig deeper even if the parties don’t want to?
Contentions
Both the parties (petitioner and the respondent) in this case had the same arguments and wanted the same thing, that is, they want to move on in their lives, leaving behind their divorce and dismissing the previous pending cases against Mohd. Julfukar regarding the offences mentioned under Section 376, 377 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.
Both the parties mutually want the pending cases to be quashed and attempted to do so by approaching the High Court of Uttarakhand but the court denied this request. The following is the reason why they approached the Supreme Court seeking the same.
Judgment
The Supreme Court, on 9th January, 2024 held that further dragging the criminal cases won’t be in the interest of the parties and therefore this appeal was allowed and court ordered to dispose the pending cases and quashing the FIR No. 474 of 2019, overruling the order of High Court.
Defects in this case
The first and foremost defect was from the side of Uttarakhand High Court. The case should have been over there only; the judgment given by Supreme Court should have been given by the said high court. What was the point to allow keeping up with the pending criminal cases if the one, who accused the other of doing them, doesn’t even want to continue it.
Relevance of this case in the legal field
As the Supreme Court clearly stated that dragging any case is not in the interest of the public, whether it is genuine or fake or anything, if the parties are not in favour to take it further, it should be quashed and dismissed then and there. Taking it further is wasting time of the whole legal system as well as the parties.
Legal system is there to provide justice to all that who want it. It is not the work of courts to go to the parties who are suffering, the one’s suffering have to raise their voice and ask for justice and if they get cold feet or are okay with it or feel like dropping off a case would be much more convenient for them (financially, mentally, physically) rather than continuing the same, they have the full right to do so and court shouldn’t drag the case further more.
This principle should be followed across the whole legal system.
Inference
Accusing a man of such heinous crimes, stating once that the marriage was against the woman’s consent and then completely changing the statement in the other hearing, basically wasting court’s time and playing with a man’s life, and even her own life, is not at all right. Even though the allegations have been dismissed now, then too the spots of allegations will always be there in both of their lives. I personally think this is a case of getting away from the marriage and not the allegations that were put. Instead of accusing the man of all this, the woman in this case could have filed for divorce in the first stance itself that too could have been done on the same grounds as she alleged. The High court too shouldn’t have encouraged it further, even after requesting to quit the criminal cases. Before filing any case, the one filing it should have clarity of mind whether he/she would be able to fight it till the end because otherwise it would just amount to wastage of resources included in a case, to be precise, wastage of time of court and the parties involved too, also wastage of money while fighting the case. There is no point in doing so.
Author :- Tashu Chauhan
Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, New Law College, Pune