SHAMBHU KHARWARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

156                     [2022]REPORTS
              SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 156                [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A                          SHAMBHU KHARWAR
                                      v.
                   STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
                      (Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2022)
B                             AUGUST 12, 2022
              [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                       A S BOPANNA, JJ.]
            Penal Code 1860: ss. 376, 375 – Punishment for rape –
      Necessary ingredients of s. 375 – On facts, accusation of rape by
C
      the second respondent-women against the appellant-man on the
      pretext of marriage – Application by appellant seeking quashing of
      criminal case registered for an offence punishable u/s. 376 –
      Dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Relationship
      between the parties-appellant and the second respondent purely
D     consensual in nature – They are both educated adults – Relationship
      of the second respondent with the appellant was in existence prior
      to the marriage of the second respondent and continued to subsist
      during the term of the marriage and after the second respondent
      was granted a divorce by mutual consent – Thus, the essential
      ingredients of an offence u/s. 376 not made out – Order passed by
E
      the High Court set aside and the application u/s. 482 CrPC allowed.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, admittedly, the appellant
      and the second respondent were in a consensual relationship from
F     2013 until December 2017. They are both educated adults. The
      second respondent, during the course of this period, got married
      on 12 June 2014 to someone else. The marriage ended in a decree
      of divorce by mutual consent on 17 September 2017. In this
      backdrop and taking the allegations in the complaint as they stand,
      it is impossible to find in the FIR or in the charge-sheet, the
G     essential ingredients of an offence under Section 376 IPC. As
      regards, the issue whether the allegations indicate that the
      appellant had given a promise to the second respondent to marry
      which at the inception was false and on the basis of which the
      second respondent was induced into a sexual relationship. Taking
H
                                     156
  SHAMBHU KHARWAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &                      157
                     ANR.

the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand,     A
the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 375 IPC are
absent. The relationship between the parties was purely of a
consensual nature. The relationship, was in existence prior to
the marriage of the second respondent and continued to subsist
during the term of the marriage and after the second respondent
                                                                   B
was granted a divorce by mutual consent. [Paras 12, 13][163-C-
D, F-G]
      1.2 The High Court merely observed that the dispute raises
a question of fact which cannot be considered in an application
under Section 482 CrPC. The facts would indicate that the
ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC were not          C
established. Thus, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the
application under Section 482 CrPC on a completely
misconceived basis. The impugned judgment and order of the
High Court in application u/s 482 is set aside. The application
under Section 482 CrPC shall accordingly stand allowed. [Paras     D
14, 15][163-G-H; 164-A-C]
     Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
     SCC OnLine SC 315; R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab
     AIR 1960 SC 866 : [1960] SCR 388; State of Haryana
     v. Bhajan Lal (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl.       E
     SCR 259; Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of
     Maharashtra (2019) 18 SCC 191; Pramod Suryabhan
     Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608 :
     [2019] 11 SCR 423; Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State
     of Uttar Pradesh (2021) SCC OnLine SC 181 –
     referred to.                                                  F

                     Case Law Reference
[1960] SCR 388                     referred to       Para 7
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259            referred to       Para 7
                                                                   G
(2019) 18 SCC 191                  referred to       Para 9
[2019] 11 SCR 423                  referred to       Para 11
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1231 of 2022.
                                                                   H
158                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           From the Judgment and Orders dated 05.10.2018 of the High
      Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application u/s 482 No. 33999 of
      2018.
            Ramjee Pandey, Uday Prakash, Raghvendra Shukla, Advs. for
      the Appellant.
B          Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Monisha Handa, Rajul Shrivastav, Anubhav
      Sharma, Ms. Srishti Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
C             1. Delay condoned.
              2. Leave granted.
             3. The appeal arises from a judgment dated 5 October 2018 of a
      Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High
      Court dismissed an application instituted by the appellant under Section
D
      482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731 for quashing Criminal
      Case No 785 of 2018 in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
      (First), Ballia arising out of Case Crime No 11 of 2018 registered at
      Police Station Rasra, District Ballia for an offence punishable under
      Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 18602. The appellant had also
E     sought the quashing of a charge-sheet bearing charge-sheet No 94 of
      2018 dated 23 April 2018 submitted under Section 173 of CrPC and the
      order taking cognizance dated 24 May 2018.
             4. Case Crime No 11 of 2018 was registered on 18 January 2018
      at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia on the basis of information furnished
F     by the second respondent. In her complaint, the second respondent stated
      as follows:
              “I was having affair with Shambhu Kharwar as his wife, who is
              also the resident of Village- Sarai Bharti, Post- Rasada, District-
              Ballia. I hereby give my statement that there was love affair
G             between us since a period of about 3 years and Shambhu Kharwar
              gave an assurance to me regarding solemnization of marriage
              and as a result of the same started living with me under the same
              roof and also used to have sexual relationship with me and also
      1
          “CrPC”
      2
H         “IPC”
   SHAMBHU KHARWAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &                                 159
      ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      used to make a demand of certain amount time to time. But I              A
      always followed him and till date I am unmarried and whenever I
      asked him regarding the solemnization of marriage, he used to
      make false and frivolous averments and at last without informing
      me solemnized marriage with someone else on 10.12.2017 and
      after the same, returned to me and told nothing regarding the
                                                                               B
      solemnization of marriage, but on being pressurized by me again
      and again he had admitted that he has entered into a ring ceremony
      with someone else, this information has been received by me from
      him only. I am very sad and whenever I asked him to solemnize
      marriage with me, he kept on making lame excuses and gave
      false assurances by saying that he will leave her by sexually            C
      assaulting her and thereafter, will solemnize marriage with me.
      After hearing the same, I have decided to initiate criminal
      proceedings against him. Therefore, it is prayed that suitable action
      may kindly be taken against him. Shambhu Kharwar son of Lallan
      Kharwar, resident of Sarai Bharti Rasada, Ballia Date 18.01.2018.”
                                                                               D
       5. The statement of the second respondent was recorded under
Section 161 of CrPC during investigation. Her statement was recorded
under Section 164. In the statement under Section 164, the second
respondent stated that during the course of training at a Teachers’
Training College, she came in contact with the appellant in 2013 and
they got into a relationship. On 12 June 2014, the marriage of the second      E
respondent was solemnized with someone else in spite of which the
relationship with the appellant continued. The second respondent stated
that the appellant had compelled her to break away from the marriage
and her matrimonial relationship had come to an end since March 2015,
barely three months after she stayed in the matrimonial home. The second       F
respondent states that she thereafter returned to the parental home and
then started living with the appellant. After the completion of her training
in 2016, the second respondent continued to live with the appellant until
December 2017. The grievance of the second respondent was that the
appellant got engaged to someone else on 10 December 2017. Though
the appellant is alleged to have agreed to break off his engagement, he        G
failed to abide by his assurance.
       6. Apart from the above narration, it is of significance to note that
the second respondent was granted a divorce by mutual consent by an
order dated 17 September 2017 of the Principal Judge of the Family
Court at Ballia.                                                               H
160            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A            7. The parameters governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of
      Section 482 of CrPC are well-settled and have been reiterated in a
      consistent line of decisions of this Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure
      v. State of Maharashtra,3 a three Judge Bench of this Court which one
      of us was a part of (D.Y. Chandrachud J.), reiterated the parameters
      laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab4 and State of Haryana v.
B
      Bhajan Lal5 and held that while the Courts ought to be cautious in
      exercising powers under Section 482, they do have the power to quash.
      The test is whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the
      commission of a cognizable offence. The Court does not enter into the
      merits of the allegations or trench upon the power of the investigating
C     agency to investigate into allegations involving the commission of a
      cognizable offence.
             8. In Bhajan Lal (supra) this Court formulated the parameters in
      terms of which the powers in Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised.
      While it is not necessary to revisit all these parameters again, a few that
D     are relevant to the present case may be set out. The Court held that
      quashing may be appropriate :
             “102. (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
E            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).
F            […]
             (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.”
G            9. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra,6
      a two Judge Bench of this Court while dealing with similar facts as the

      3
        2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
      4
        AIR 1960 SC 866
      5
        1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
H     6
        2019 (18) SCC 191
  SHAMBHU KHARWAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &                                 161
     ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

present case reiterated the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra)        A
held that:
      “13. It is clear that for quashing the proceedings, meticulous
      analysis of factum of taking cognizance of an offence by the
      Magistrate is not called for. Appreciation of evidence is also not
      permissible in exercise of inherent powers. If the allegations          B
      set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of
      which cognizance has been taken, it is open to the High
      Court to quash the same in exercise of its inherent powers.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
      10. An offence is punishable under Section 376 of the IPC if the        C
offence of rape is established in terms of Section 375 which sets out the
ingredients of the offence. In the present case, the second description of
Section 375 along with Section 90 of the IPC is relevant which is set out
below.
      “375. Rape – A man is said to commit “rape” if he –                     D
      […]
      under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven
      descriptions
      Firstly …                                                               E
      Secondly. – Without her consent.
      […]
      Explanation 2. – Consent means an unequivocal voluntary
      agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of              F
      verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness
      to participate in the specific sexual act:
      Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act
      of penetration shall not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded
      as consenting to the sexual activity.
                                                                              G
      xxx
      90. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception
      - A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of
      this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury,
      or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act       H
162               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A              knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in
               consequence of such fear or misconception; or…”
            11. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra,7 a
      two Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a part (D.Y.
      Chandrachud J.), held in Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar
B     Pradesh,8 observed that :
               “12. This Court has repeatedly held that consent with respect to
               Section 375 of the IPC involves an active understanding of the
               circumstances, actions and consequences of the proposed act.
               An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating
C              various alternative actions (or inaction) as well as the various
               possible consequences flowing from such action or inaction,
               consents to such action…
               […]
               14. […] Specifically in the context of a promise to marry, this
D              Court has observed that there is a distinction between a false
               promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be
               broken, and the breach of a promise which is made in good faith
               but subsequently not fulfilled…
               […]
E
               16. Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the
               maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by
               it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual
               relations, there is a “misconception of fact” that vitiates the
               woman’s “consent”. On the other hand, a breach of a promise
F              cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise,
               the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding
               his word at the time of giving it. The “consent” of a woman
               under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a
               “misconception of fact” where such misconception was the
               basis for her choosing to engage in the said act…
G
               […]
               18. To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above
               cases, the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375
      7
          2019 (9) SCC 608
H     8
          2021 SCC OnLine SC 181
   SHAMBHU KHARWAR v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH &                                163
      ANR. [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the            A
      proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by
      a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two
      propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must
      have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention
      of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise
                                                                              B
      itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus
      to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
       12. In the present case, the issue which had to be addressed by
the High Court was whether, assuming all the allegations in the charge-       C
sheet are correct as they stand, an offence punishable under Section
376 IPC was made out. Admittedly, the appellant and the second
respondent were in a consensual relationship from 2013 until December
2017. They are both educated adults. The second respondent, during the
course of this period, got married on 12 June 2014 to someone else. The
marriage ended in a decree of divorce by mutual consent on 17 September       D
2017. The allegations of the second respondent indicate that her
relationship with the appellant continued prior to her marriage, during
the subsistence of the marriage and after the grant of divorce by mutual
consent.
       13. In this backdrop and taking the allegations in the complaint as    E
they stand, it is impossible to find in the FIR or in the charge-sheet, the
essential ingredients of an offence under Section 376 IPC. The crucial
issue which is to be considered is whether the allegations indicate that
the appellant had given a promise to the second respondent to marry
which at the inception was false and on the basis of which the second         F
respondent was induced into a sexual relationship. Taking the allegations
in the FIR and the charge-sheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of
the offence under Section 375 IPC are absent. The relationship between
the parties was purely of a consensual nature. The relationship, as noted
above, was in existence prior to the marriage of the second respondent
and continued to subsist during the term of the marriage and after the        G
second respondent was granted a divorce by mutual consent.
      14. The High Court, in the course of its judgment, has merely
observed that the dispute raises a question of fact which cannot be
considered in an application under Section 482 of CrPC. As demonstrated
                                                                              H
164                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     in the above analysis, the facts as they stand, which are not in dispute,
      would indicate that the ingredients of the offence under Section 376 IPC
      were not established. The High Court has, therefore, proceeded to dismiss
      the application under Section 482 of CrPC on a completely misconceived
      basis.
B            15. We, accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
      judgment and order of the High Court dated 5 October 2018 in application
      u/s 482 No 33999 of 2018. The application under Section 482 of CrPC
      shall accordingly stand allowed. The Case Crime No 11 of 2018 registered
      at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia, charge-sheet dated 23 April 2018
      in the aforementioned case and the order dated 24 May 2018 in Criminal
C     Case No 785 of 2018 in the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate
      (First), Ballia taking cognizance of the charge-sheet shall accordingly
      stand quashed.
              16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

D
      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.




E




F




G




H