Suresh Garodia vs. State of Assam
Citation: 2024 INSC 39; Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Background
The case arose from an FIR lodged on December 4, 2016, by the prosecutrix at the Bharalumukh Police Station, Guwahati, alleging that in 1982, when she was 15 years old, Suresh Garodia raped her, resulting in the birth of a son, Jasim Ahmed Garodia, in April 1983. She further claimed that Garodia threatened her not to report the offence. The matter was investigated, and the Investigating Officer (IO) found that the accused was indeed the biological father of the prosecutrix’s son, and that Garodia had provided financial support and other facilities to him. The IO concluded that the FIR was motivated by a property dispute between Garodia and his son, and recommended closing the case as a civil matter. However, the Magistrate rejected the final report and took cognizance under Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC. Garodia’s application to quash proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court, leading to the present Supreme Court appeal.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Unexplained Delay:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the FIR was filed after an extraordinary delay of 34 years, with no explanation offered for the prosecutrix’s silence. The Court held that such an inordinate, unexplained delay in lodging a criminal complaint, especially in a serious offence like rape, undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case and is, by itself, a valid ground for quashing the proceedings.
Nature of Dispute:
The Court noted evidence that the accused had acknowledged paternity and provided financial support to the son. The IO’s findings suggested that the FIR was lodged due to a property dispute rather than a genuine pursuit of justice for a criminal offence.
Magistrate’s Duty:
The Supreme Court reiterated that while a Magistrate is not bound to accept the IO’s final report, any disagreement must be supported by clear reasons. In this case, the Magistrate’s order lacked adequate reasoning for taking cognizance despite the IO’s negative report.
Abuse of Process:
The Court concluded that the continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process, as the criminal law was being misused for ulterior motives, specifically property-related grievances.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the High Court and Magistrate, and directed that all criminal proceedings against Suresh Garodia be dropped.
Significance
This judgment underscores the importance of prompt reporting in criminal cases, especially those involving serious allegations like rape. It affirms that unexplained, excessive delay in lodging an FIR can be fatal to the prosecution’s case and that criminal law should not be weaponized for settling civil or property disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments