The Bombay High Court at Goa quashed an FIR registered against Pushkar Vaigankar for the offences of rape and criminal intimidation under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was within the bounds of a legally valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, even if religious rituals were not performed.
Background of the Case
The complainant (Respondent No.3), a 30-year-old woman, filed an FIR alleging that the petitioner had physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to marry her. She further alleged that he threatened to leak her private videos. Based on these allegations, the Panaji Police registered a case under IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 417, and 506.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, claiming that the complainant was his legally wedded wife and that the physical relationship between them was consensual and within the confines of their marriage.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner’s Counsel (Mr. Vibhav Amonkar):
It was submitted that the petitioner and the complainant had entered into a legally valid marriage under the Special Marriage Act on 11th December 2023 before the Sub-Registrar of Tiswadi at Panaji, Goa. A certified copy of the marriage certificate was placed on record. The petitioner denied the allegations of threat or coercion and asserted that there was no deception involved.
Respondent No.3’s Counsel (Mr. Shirin V. Naik):
The complainant alleged that the petitioner had sexually exploited her on the false promise of marriage and subsequently refused to acknowledge their marriage due to differences in religion. It was contended that although the registration under the Special Marriage Act was completed, the petitioner had refused to perform religious ceremonies, thereby violating the promise.
State’s Counsel (Mr. Somnath Karpe, APP):
The State supported the continuation of investigation based on the allegations in the FIR.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta observed that there was no dispute about the solemnisation of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Court held that “the moment the marriage is solemnised under the provisions of the said Act, any personal law or customary ceremonies are not relevant for recognizing the relationship as husband and wife.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, and reiterated the principle that the “false promise of marriage” must be of such a nature that it was never intended to be fulfilled. The Court found no such circumstance in this case.
Regarding the allegations of criminal intimidation, the Court found them vague and unsupported by specific material. It noted that “except for the omnibus allegations, the complaint does not specify any particular date or incident which may amount to intimidation.”
The Court also observed:
“In the backdrop of a validly registered marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No.3, their sexual relationship cannot be termed as rape.”
Decision
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom, stating that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. The Court concluded:
“In the peculiar facts of the case, continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and hence, deserves to be quashed in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.”
The petition was accordingly allowed, and the FIR bearing No. 06/2024 registered with Panaji Police Station was quashed.
Case Title : Pushkar Vaigankar v. State of Goa
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No.999 of 2024(F)
