Supreme Court Quashes 34-Year-Old Rape Case, Citing Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated January 9, 2024, quashed criminal proceedings against Suresh Garodia, who had been accused of rape in a case filed 34 years after the alleged incident. The Court ruled that the case was an abuse of process and lacked justification for such an extraordinary delay.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR lodged on December 4, 2016, by the complainant, alleging that when she was 15 years old in 1982, the appellant, Suresh Garodia, had raped her, leading to the birth of a child in April 1983. The complainant also claimed that the accused had coerced her into silence and threatened her against filing a case.

Following the FIR, an investigation was conducted, and a final report was submitted by the police, which concluded that the case was of a civil nature arising out of a property dispute. The investigating officer found that the appellant had been providing financial support and other facilities to the complainant’s son, and the complaint had only been filed decades later due to property greed.

The Magistrate, however, disregarded the final report and took cognizance of the matter, leading the accused to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the case. The Gauhati High Court dismissed his plea on August 22, 2022, which was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the case should be quashed due to an extraordinary delay of 34 years in filing the complaint.
Whether the complainant’s allegations, despite the delay, constituted a prima facie case for rape under Section 376 IPC.
Whether the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance despite the investigating officer’s conclusion that the case was a civil dispute.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, argued that the complaint was filed solely to blackmail the appellant and that the delay of 34 years was a clear indication of malice. He pointed out that the complainant’s son, born out of the alleged incident, had received financial support from the appellant, and the real reason behind the complaint was a property dispute between the appellant and his alleged son.

He further contended that the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance lacked justification and failed to provide reasons for disregarding the final report submitted by the investigating officer.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State of Assam and the complainant, represented by their respective counsels, argued that the delay in lodging the FIR should not be a ground for quashing the case. They emphasized that the complainant had alleged she was a minor at the time of the incident, and even if the act was consensual, it would still constitute statutory rape under Section 376 IPC.

The complainant’s counsel maintained that the statement of the prosecutrix should be taken at face value and that she had been coerced into silence for decades.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the matter in light of the principles established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), where it was held that cases filed with mala fide intent or lacking a prima facie case could be quashed to prevent the abuse of legal proceedings.

The Court held:

“Lodging a case after 34 years and that too on the basis of a bald statement that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the commission of offence, could itself be a ground to quash the proceedings. No explanation whatsoever is given in the FIR as to why the prosecutrix was keeping silent for a long period of 34 years.”

Referring to the investigating officer’s report, the Court noted that:

“The material on record shows that the relationship was consensual, inasmuch as the son who is born out of the said relationship has been treated by the appellant as his son and all the facilities, including cash money, have been provided to him.”

The Supreme Court also criticized the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance without providing reasons for disregarding the final report:

“If the learned Magistrate disagrees with the finding of the I.O., the least that is expected of him is to give reasons as to why he disagrees with such a report and as to why he finds it necessary to take cognizance despite the negative report submitted by the I.O. Nothing of that sort has been done by the learned Magistrate in his order dated 4th July 2017.”

Final Judgment

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order dated August 22, 2022, as well as the Magistrate’s order dated July 4, 2017, taking cognizance of the case. The Court ruled:

“We find that the continuation of the proceedings would lead to nothing else but an abuse of process of law.”

The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Extensive delays in filing complaints, without justifiable reasons, can lead to the quashing of criminal cases.
Magistrates must provide proper reasoning when taking cognizance contrary to the final report of the investigating officer.
Allegations filed decades after an alleged offense, particularly where there is clear evidence of a property dispute, can be viewed as an abuse of the legal process.

The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the importance of preventing misuse of legal provisions for ulterior motives while also ensuring that genuine cases are not dismissed without due consideration.

Petitioner Name: Suresh Garodia.
Respondent Name: The State of Assam & Another.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Assam.
Judgment Date: 09-01-2024.

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

Download Judgment: suresh-garodia-vs-the-state-of-assam-&-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 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