In a significant legal battle involving G.S.P. Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., a groundbreaking judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court of India. The case has been closely followed and today’s decision marks a crucial turning point in the pursuit of justice.
Facts
- The appellant met the 2 respondent, who is the Managing Director of G.S.P. Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. while in Ahmedabad for employment.
- The appellant alleged that the 2 respondent demanded sexual favors while at the apartment and later rented a separate apartment in Adani Pratham.
- Allegations include rape, threats of publishing nude pictures, and blackmail by the 2 respondent.
- The appellant’s marriage was fixed with Mr. Shoukin Malik, leading to further attempts by the 2 respondent to defame her.
- The 2 respondent filed a Special Criminal Application seeking to quash the FIR, claiming consensual sex and denying rape allegations.
Also Read: Judgement on Auction of Assets in Hirakud Industrial Works Ltd. Case
Arguments
- The High Court has been accused of exceeding its power under Section 482 of CrPC in passing the impugned order.
- It is argued that the High Court should not have used its powers under Section 482 to obstruct the investigation due to serious allegations against the 2nd respondent.
- The dispute between the parties was settled as per the agreement, with the 2nd respondent allegedly paying a significant amount to the appellant.
- The 2nd respondent claims that all electronic and other materials between the parties were agreed to be destroyed.
- The 2nd respondent denies the alleged telephonic calls made to Mr. Shoukin Malik of Rajasthan, labeling them as false and baseless.
- The High Court found the case of the 2nd respondent to fall under Exceptions 5 and 7 as per the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal & Ors judgment.
- The High Court deemed the allegations and facts in the FIR as improbable and a result of malicious prosecution, leading to the quashing of the proceedings against the 2nd respondent.
- Parties reached a settlement and entered into a written agreement in July 2016.
- Allegations of rape against the 2nd respondent have no basis after the settlement.
- Allegation of defaming the appellant through a phone call is denied by the 2nd respondent.
- Claim of receiving large sum of money followed by a false complaint to harass the 2nd respondent is made.
- 2nd respondent allegedly misused photographs to blackmail the appellant for sexual favors.
- Exploitation and rape allegations against the 2nd respondent in various locations.
- Alleged settlement was claimed to be under threat and coercion, not with free will.
- High Court’s order to summon Police Inspector and reliance on his statement is contested.
- Investigating Officer’s attempt to secure mobile phone data from service providers was unsuccessful.
- Relying on settlement documents and recent judgment, the 2nd respondent seeks quashing of the FIR.
Also Read: Land Dispute Resolution: A Supreme Court Judgement
Analysis
- The High Court should not have conducted a roving inquiry under Section 482 CrPC based on serious allegations in the complaint.
- The High Court’s focus on the agreement/settlement between the parties led to a finding that the physical relationship was consensual, which may have overlooked coercion claims.
- The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC by prematurely quashing the proceedings before the investigation was completed.
- The interim order granted by the High Court stalled the investigation process by the investigating agency.
- The allegations of blackmail and interference by the 2nd respondent need to be thoroughly investigated.
- The complaint’s serious allegations against the 2nd respondent indicate the High Court’s error in quashing the proceedings.
- Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, pertaining to the presumption of absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape, was brought to attention during the hearing.
- Sexual intercourse by the accused is proven
- Question of consent arises
- Woman alleges lack of consent in her court testimony
- Court presumes lack of consent in such cases
- Judgment from August 21, 2019, is not relevant to this case.
- Decision to use power under Section 482 depends on complaint contents and the material provided.
- The order from the High Court is to be set aside to allow further investigation by the agency.
Also Read: Bank Guarantee Dispute: ANZ Grindlays Bank v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd.
Decision
- No coercive action shall be taken against the individual until a certain date.
- The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the complaint.
- The investigating agency and competent court are allowed to proceed with the case according to the law.
- The criminal appeal is allowed, and the previous order passed by the High Court is set aside.
- The individual is required to appear before the concerned Police Station on a specified date and time to cooperate with the investigation.
Case Title: MISS XYZ Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001619-001619 / 2019
