9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of criminal proceedings based on allegations of rape and other offenses under extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: The judgment involved two appeals against the order of the Kerala High Court quashing criminal proceedings against five accused persons accused of rape. The High Court had concluded that the allegations made by the victim did not constitute the offense of rape. The victim had given a detailed account of exploitation and harassment, leading to the registration of a case under various sections of the IPC. The High Court, after comparing the victim's statements and entering into conjecture, concluded that the victim willingly engaged in sexual activities and quashed the proceedings against the accused. The State of Kerala and the Women's Commission argued that the High Court erred in preventing the investigation against influential accused persons and failed to consider other offenses like those under the Immoral Traffic Act. They contended that quashing proceedings at the FIR stage for such serious offenses was against the interest of justice. However, the defense argued that the High Court was justified in quashing the proceedings as the victim's statements did not make out any offense against the accused. The accused were influential individuals in society, and the High Court's order was fair and just to prevent the abuse of the court's process. The Supreme Court, in its analysis, referred to previous judgments emphasizing that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be sparingly exercised and only in rare cases to prevent abuse of the court's process or ensure justice. The court cautioned against interfering with the investigation at the threshold and highlighted the importance of allowing the law to take its course. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in shifting evidence to conclude the victim's age and the nature of the alleged sexual intercourse. The High Court's comments on the victim were disapproved, and it was noted that making comments on the victim's character at that stage was inappropriate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the FIR and investigations, directing the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation expeditiously. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's order. In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the importance of exercising caution while quashing criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving serious offenses like rape. The court emphasized the need to allow investigations to proceed unhindered and refrain from making unwarranted comments on victims. The decision underscored the significance of following due process of law and ensuring justice is served without undue interference in the investigative process.
|
