MANU/SC/1114/2024

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 4222 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9371 of 2018)
Decided On: 16.10.2024
Appellants: Lalu Yadav Vs. Respondent: The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Devvrat, AOR, Swati Setia, Harshita Sharma and
Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Garvesh Kabra, AOR, Harshita Raghuvanshi, Pooja
Kabra, Avneesh Deshpande, Advs., Shantanu Kumar, AOR and S.M. Hashmi, Adv.
JUDGMENT
C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Leave granted.
1 . The captioned Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.07.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16825 of
2018. The said Writ Petition was filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking quashment of FIR dated 21.02.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 28 of 2018
registered Under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the
'IPC') at Police Station Nandganj in Ghazipur District of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In
view of the fact that quashment of FIR was sought Under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate MANU/SC/1090/1998 : 1997:INSC:714 : (1998)
5 SCC 749. It was held therein that the High Court could exercise its power of judicial
review in Criminal matters and it could exercise the power either Under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India or Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for brevity 'Cr.P.C'), to prevent the abuse of process of the court or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. Nomenclature under which a petition is filed is not quite
relevant. If the court finds that the Petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the
Court Under Article 226, it may treat the petition Under Section 482, Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the State
of Uttar Pradesh for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and also the learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 4 (the complainant).
3. The gravamen of her complaint, based on which the above-mentioned crime was
registered on 21.02.2018, is revealed from the following allegations made
thereunder:
...My elder sister Meera Devi was married to Satendra Yadav Village Kukuda
P.S. Nandganj, District - Ghazipur, Lalu Yadav S/o Seshnath Yadav R/o
Atarsuya P.S. Nandganj District - Ghazipur used to come to my house along
with the brother in law Ravindra Yadav of my elder sister, at that time about
five years back I was a student of High School, then the said Lalu Yadav by

17-10-2024 (Page 1 of 6) www.manupatra.com Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

 way of deceiving myself promise that he will marry me and established
physical relationship with me without my consent and started living with me
as the husband. He used to say that he would marry me when he gets a job.
My mother Rajvati Devi and my father Hari Singh Yadav was also of the
knowledge of our relation. When my father and mother raised an objection
about our relation then Lalu Yadav told her that he will marry Preeti. He told
her that nobody should object and therefore my parents went silent and Lalu
Yadav kept established with me the applicant without my consent due to
which I became pregnant after the knowledge of which he give me a
medicine of with which and abortion has occurred and when the said Lalu
Yadav came to the house of the applicant on 28.09.2017 then he took the
said applicant to Varanasi on 29.09.2017 and kept me in a hotel and again
made physical relationship with me due to which I became pregnant in May
2017 and said Lalu Yadav did my abortion my pressuring me again,
thereafter again 17.12.2017 the said Lalu Yadav took me to a hotel in
Varanasi an made physical relationship with me their, thereafter Lalu Yadav
got a job in army and after which he is refusing to marry the applicant...
4 . In the contextual situation, it is relevant to refer to the details given under item
No. 3 in Annexure- P2/FIR, which read thus:
3 (a) occurrence of offence.
1. Day Date from - 05.01.2013
Date To - 05.01.2018
(b) Information received at P.S:
Date: 21.02.2018. Time: 21.34 hr.
5 . Before delving into the rival contentions, it is relevant to note that though this
Court stayed further proceedings in case Crime No. 28/2018 on 13.11.2018, this
Court virtually modified the same on 18.08.2023 as under:
It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court staying further
proceedings in Crime No. 28/2018 registered at P.S. Nandganj, District
Ghazipur, U.P. dated 13.11.2018 will not stand in the way of investigation
for investigating into the offence Under Section 313 of Indian Penal Code.
List the matter after two months.
6 . Earlier, on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 counter affidavit was filed fully
justifying the impugned order. On behalf of the Respondent No. 4 also, a counter
affidavit was filed, evidently, on the same line. Pursuant to the order dated
18.08.2023, virtually, permitting continuance of investigation in Crime No. 28/2018
in respect of the allegation of commission of offence Under Section 313 Indian Penal
Code, investigation in that regard was continued and completed. Thereupon, an
additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the first Respondent - State with respect to
the status of investigation and the same, insofar as it is relevant, reads thus:
6 . That pursuant to the direction, the investigating officer had conducted
investigation with respect to offence Under Section 313 Indian Penal Code
and after due investigation and material available on record, including her
statement, medical reports etc. has concluded that there is no
evidence/material available with respect to offence Under Section 313 Indian

17-10-2024 (Page 2 of 6) www.manupatra.com Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

 Penal Code i.e. no material substantiating abortion of the victim in the
present offence and hence as on 02.02.2024 omitted offence Under Section
313, Indian Penal Code.
7 . That the investigation Under Section 376 is still pending as the same is
stayed by this Hon'ble Court.
7. In view of the statement in the afore-extracted paragraph 6 and 7, the undisputed
position obtained that the allegation of commission of offence Under Section 313,
Indian Penal Code stands omitted against the Appellant. What survives for
consideration is only the question whether the impugned order invites interference
and the subject FIR be quashed invoking the inherent jurisdiction?
8 . We have already taken note of the facts revealed from the subject FIR itself that
the time of occurrence of offence is allegedly, from 05.01.2013 to 05.01.2018 and
that it was registered only at 21.34 hrs. on 21.02.2018. That apart, it is evident that
even going by Respondent No. 4, the complainant herself and the Appellant were
living as husband and wife. The complaint of Respondent No. 4, as is revealed
therefrom, is that the Appellant had deceived her by promising to marry and then by
establishing physical relationship. At the risk of repetition, we will have to refer to
the FIR, carrying the following recitals from her complaint:
... Lalu Yadav S/o Seshnath Yadav R/o Atarsuya P.S. Nandganj District-
Ghazipur, used to come to my house along with the brother-in-law Ravindra
Yadav of my elder sister, at that time about five years back I was a student of
High School, then the said Lalu Yadav by way of deceiving myself promise
that he will marry me and established physical relationship with me without
my consent and started living with me as the husband.
(underline supplied)
9. At the very outset, it is to be noted that there is a huge irregularity between the
statements "established physical relationship with me without my consent" and
"started living with me as the husband". Be that as it may, bearing in mind the
allegations raised by Respondent No. 4 reflected in the subject FIR, we will refer to
the relevant decisions of this Court.
10. While dismissing the writ petition under the impugned order, presumably taking
note of the contentions based on time lag of five years, the High Court relied on its
Full Bench decisions in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/3134/2006 :
2006 (56) ACC 433, and in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. MANU/UP/1136/1999 : 2000
CrL J 569. as well as the decision of this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan
Lal and Ors. MANU/SC/0115/1992 : 1990:INSC:363 : AIR 1992 SC 604. It observed
and held that there could be no interference with the investigation or order staying
arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations
contained in the FIR or there exists any statutory restriction operating against the
power of the Police to investigate a case. There can be no two views on the
exposition of law thus made relying on the said decisions. In the same breath we will
have to say that those decisions can be no bar for the exercise of power Under
Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, in various other situations dealt with, in
detail, by this Court, including in the decision in Bhajan Lal's case (supra).
11. To determine whether the case in hand deserves to be quashed at the present
stage we will refer to some of the decisions. We have already taken note of the fact
that though there was an allegation in the FIR regarding commission of offence Under
Section 313, Indian Penal Code, on completion of the investigation, the investigating

17-10-2024 (Page 3 of 6) www.manupatra.com Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

agency itself omitted the offence Under Section 313, Indian Penal Code against the
Appellant-Accused. In paragraph 102 of the decision in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) this
Court held thus:
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions
of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the Accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and
the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission
of any offence and make out a case against the Accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the Accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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
private and personal grudge.
1 2 . In the decision in Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka and Anr.
MANU/SC/0408/2018 : (2019) 18 SCC 204, this Court held thus:
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain

17-10-2024 (Page 4 of 6) www.manupatra.com Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

 the charges levelled against the Appellant who may have possibly, made a
false promise of marriage to the complainant. It is, however, difficult to hold
sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for
eight years, as "rape" especially in the face of the complainant's own
allegation that they lived together as man and wife.
1 3 . The decision in "XXXX" v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
MANU/SC/0177/2024 : 2024:INSC:181 : (2024) 3 SCC 496, also assumes relevance
in the contextual situation. This Court took into consideration an earlier decision of
this Court in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) MANU/SC/0080/2023 :
2023:INSC:85, where the allegation was one of alleged rape on false promise of
marriage, made five years after the complainant and the Accused started having
relations and even got pregnant from the Accused, of course when she was having a
subsisting marriage, the Court found that there cannot be any stretch of imagination
that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under
misconception. Having considered the said decision and finding identity in facts, this
Court in the decision reported in MANU/SC/0177/2024 : 2024:INSC:181 : (2024) 3
SCC 496 reversed the order impugned therein dismissing the petition filed Under
Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of FIR and allowed the
appeal by setting aside the impugned order and quashing the subject FIR.
14. Now, having bestowed our anxious consideration to the decisions referred supra
with reference to the factual situations obtained in the case at hand, we are of the
considered view that the High Court has palpably gone wrong in not considering the
question whether the allegations in the complaint reveals prima facie case that the
complainant had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the Appellant
under misconception of fact, as alleged, or whether it reveals a case of consensual
sex. Firstly, it is to be noted that the subject FIR itself would reveal that there
occurred a delay of more than 5 years for registering the FIR; secondly, the very case
of the complainant, as revealed from the FIR, would go to show that they lived for a
long period as man and wife and thirdly, the facts and circumstances obtained from
the subject FIR and other materials on record would reveal absence of a prima facie
case that the complainant viz., Respondent No. 4 had given her consent for sexual
relationship with the Appellant under misconception of fact. At any rate, the
allegations in the FIR would not constitute a prima facie case of false promise to
marry from the inception with a view to establish sexual relationship and instead they
would reveal a prima facie case of long consensual physical relationship, during
which the complainant addressed the Appellant as her husband. Moreover, it is also
the case of the complainant, revealed from the subject FIR and the other materials on
record that she went along with the Appellant to Varanasi with the knowledge of her
family and stayed with him in hotels during such visits. The subsequent refusal to
marry the complainant would not be sufficient, in view of the facts and circumstances
obtained in the case at hand, by any stretch of imagination to draw existence of a
prima facie case that the complainant had given consent for the sexual relationship
with the Appellant under misconception of fact, so as to accuse the Appellant guilty
of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375, Indian Penal Code.
15. The long and short of the above discussion is that the case at hand is a befitting
case where the High Court should have exercised the power available Under Section
482, Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Now
that the allegation of offence Under Section 313, Indian Penal Code is omitted, there
is absolutely no prima facie case for proceeding further against the Appellant on the
allegation of commission of offence punishable Under Section 376, Indian Penal
Code. We are of the considered view that the High Court should have exercised its
inherent power.

17-10-2024 (Page 5 of 6) www.manupatra.com Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur

1 6 . For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.07.2018 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16825 of
2018 is set aside. FIR No. 28/2018 dated 21.02.2018 registered at Police Station -
Nandganj, Ghazipur District of Uttar Pradesh and all further proceedings on its basis
are quashed. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

17-10-2024 (Page 6 of 6) www.manupatra.com Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur