SURESH GARODIA V. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER, Citation: 2024 (SC) 40
On December 4th, 2016, the victim lodged FIR at the Bharalumukh Police Station in Guwahati, alleging that when she was fifteen, the appellant raped her, resulting in the birth of her child, Jasim Ahmed Garodia, on April 7th, 1983. Despite the final report being filed, the magistrate rejected it and instructed that cognizance be taken based on the police report. The appellant, unhappy with this decision, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court, which was dismissed in the impugned order.
After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed, wherein the Investigating Officer mentioned that the appellant was found to be the biological father of the prosecutrix's son. It was also mentioned that the appellant had provided cash money and other facilities to his son; however, due to greed for his property, the prosecutrix and her son had lodged the FIR after 34 years.
Issue
Whether FIR can be lodged after 30 years of the incident?
The appellant has approached this Court aggrieved by the order dated August 22, 2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) for quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as for quashing the order dated July 4, 2017, passed by the learned Magistrate for taking cognizance under Section 376/506 of IPC.
Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting that the FIR was lodged as a form of blackmail and represented an abuse of legal proceedings.
Decision
The Supreme Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of raping a minor. The court emphasized that the FIR was lodged after 34 years after the alleged incident and relied solely on an unsupported assertion that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offence.
In reaching the decision, the Bench additionally considered that the son born from the relationship between the prosecutrix and the appellant had been acknowledged by the latter as his own son, with all amenities, including cash, provided to him. This suggested that the relationship was consensual, as stated by the court. Furthermore, it was held that while the Magistrate was not obligated to accept the Investigating Officer's final report, reasons for its rejection should have been provided.
