Supreme Court Allows Criminal Investigation in Alleged Sexual Assault Case: Quashes High Court Order

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India set aside an order of the Gujarat High Court that had quashed an FIR filed by a woman against her employer for alleged sexual assault, blackmail, and defamation. The case, Miss XYZ v. State of Gujarat & Anr., revolved around allegations of repeated rape, coercion, and intimidation, as well as claims that the accused attempted to malign the complainant’s reputation. The apex court ruled that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and allowed the investigating agency to proceed with the case.

Background of the Case

The appellant, a woman who had relocated from Rajasthan to Ahmedabad for employment, lodged an FIR (No. CR-I-60-2017) at the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City, alleging that the accused, her employer and Managing Director of G.S.P. Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., had sexually assaulted her multiple times. The complaint detailed instances of blackmail, coercion, and threats of defamation.

The complainant alleged that:

• The accused had secretly taken inappropriate photographs of her and later used them to blackmail her.
• He sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, including in Ahmedabad and Baroda, under threats of job termination and public humiliation.
• Even after she resigned and moved back to Rajasthan, he continued harassing her, including sending defamatory messages to her fiancé.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Miss XYZ)

The petitioner, through her counsel, contended:

• The High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by summarily quashing the FIR and halting the investigation.
• The allegations against the accused were serious, involving rape, blackmail, and defamation, and required thorough investigation.
• The alleged settlement agreement between the complainant and the accused was coerced and should not have been considered as a ground for quashing the FIR.
• That Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, which presumes absence of consent in certain cases, was applicable in this case.

Arguments by the Respondents

The accused, through senior counsel, argued:

• The sexual relationship was consensual, and the allegations of rape were fabricated.
• A settlement agreement was signed in July 2016, in which the complainant agreed to withdraw all claims after accepting a financial settlement.
• The allegations of blackmail and threats were unsubstantiated and lacked any supporting evidence.
• The complaint was filed with a malafide intention to harass the accused after their consensual relationship ended.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra, and R. Subhash Reddy, carefully analyzed the matter and ruled in favor of allowing the investigation to proceed. The court made the following observations:

• The High Court had prematurely quashed the FIR before the investigation was complete.
• The claims of coercion regarding the settlement agreement could not be ignored and required detailed scrutiny.
• The accused’s alleged act of calling the complainant’s fiancé and defaming her added weight to the prosecution’s case.
• The presumption under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act should be considered in determining the absence of consent.

The court emphasized:

“When it is the allegation of the appellant that the settlement agreement itself was obtained under threat and coercion, it is a matter to be investigated.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The Gujarat High Court’s order quashing the FIR was set aside.
• The investigating agency was directed to continue its probe in accordance with the law.
• The accused was ordered to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the police on a designated date.
• No coercive action would be taken against the accused until the investigation was completed.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling reaffirms that cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault and blackmail should not be dismissed prematurely based on claims of consensual relationships or settlement agreements. It highlights the importance of allowing the investigative process to run its course and prevents the misuse of legal provisions to halt legitimate criminal proceedings.

Petitioner Name: Miss XYZ.
Respondent Name: State of Gujarat & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra, Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Place Of Incident: Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 25-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Miss XYZ vs State of Gujarat & A Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Rape Cases
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category