The bench of justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta today quashed an order of cognizance taken by Magistrate against a negative final report in an FIR lodged by a woman and her son for an alleged offence of rape reported after 34 years. The bench noted that the accused who has allegedly committed rape upon the prosecutrix has treated the son of the prosecutrix as his son and maintained by giving cash and other benefits.

The prosecutrix had lodged the report that when the alleged offence was committed she was a minor and after the rape, the son was born. The Court held in the judgment that this appears to be a trick to get the properties of the accused since the prosecutrix has not narrated the delay of 34 years in lodging the FIR.

Earlier the Gauhati High Court held that, “I have considered the submission of Mr Bhattacharyya in respect of the doctrine of inequity that after 34 years of the offence and having received the status of wife and also having received a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only, nothing remains with her to claim further. But, the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya left this Court unimpressed in as much as this Court is bound to maintain the balance between both the parties. The suffering of the informant and suffering of the petitioner both are to be balanced and redressed as sought for and it should be equitable for both the side. It is not out of place to mention here that – “Right to protection from sexual harassments is universally recognised basic human rights. The common minimum requirement of the right has received global acceptance. This right has been embodied in the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. With the increasing emphasis on gender justice resentments toward the incident of sexual harassment is increasing gradually. And a duty is cast upon the judiciary to realise the true concept of the gender equality.”

The High Court considered the law laid down and came to the conclusion that, “Thus, from the illuminating discourse, the legal proposition, in respect of quashing of FIR/Complaint and criminal proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be crystallized as under:- 

(a) The High Court cannot enter into the merits of the case, or 
(b) The High Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry, or 
(c) The High Court cannot conduct a trial as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the FIR, or 
(d) The High Court cannot see the probability of conviction on the basis of evidence on record.

Finding the reasoning of the Gauhati High Court not tenable in the eyes of law, the bench quashed the proceeding of GR Case No. 13706/2016 under section 376/506 IPC.

Advocate Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR Mr. Ibad Mushtaq,adv appeared for the Petitioner and Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Ragini Pandey,Adv. appeared for Respondent State of Assam and for the wife Ms. S. Janani, AOR Mr. Nishant Kumar,Adv appeared.

Case Details:-
SLP(Crl) No. 9142/2022
GARODIA FUZAIL Versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Read the Gauhati High Court Judgment