30 May 2025 Legal Updates

SUPREME COURT QUASHES RAPE CASE AGAINST MAN WHO BACKED OUT OF MARRIAGE

(a) Case Title:

• Batlanki Keshav (Kesava) Kumar Anurag v. State of Telangana & Anr. 

(b) Court: 

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 29th May 2025 

(d) Bench: 

• Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta 

Facts:

The appellant (accused) and the complainant (respondent No. 2) met through a matrimonial website and agreed to marry.  An agreement was signed in the presence of police, but the accused later avoided marriage, leading to allegations of sexual exploitation under false promise of marriage. Two FIRs were filed by the Complainant. The 1st FIR accused the appellant under Sections 417 (cheating) and 420 (fraud) IPC.  The 2nd FIR accused the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) IPC (rape under false promise of marriage) and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act (atrocity based on caste). 

The High Court refused to quash 2nd FIR, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issues:

• Whether the FIRs were filed with malicious intent and contained contradictions. 
• Whether the sexual relationship was consensual or based on a false promise of marriage. 
• Whether the allegations under the SC/ST Act were justified. 

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

• Contradictions in FIRs:  The complainant omitted key incidents in the first FIR but included them in the second FIR, raising doubts about credibility. 
• Consent & False Promise:  The complainant, a 30-year-old educated woman, engaged in a relationship voluntarily. No evidence proved the accused never intended to marry her. 
• SC/ST Act Allegations:  The caste-based claim appeared exaggerated, as it was absent in the first FIR. 
• Complainant’s Conduct:  Evidence showed manipulative behaviour (chats admitting to trapping men for a "green card").  Past similar complaints against another individual indicated a pattern of false allegations. 

Judgement:

The Supreme Court quashed both FIRs, calling them an abuse of the legal process.  The Court emphasized that continuation of proceedings would be a travesty of justice. 

KEY TAKEAWAY:

• Quashing of FIR (Section 482 CrPC): Courts can quash FIRs if they are frivolous, malicious, or lack prima facie evidence. 
• False Promise of Marriage (Section 376 IPC): Mere breach of promise ≠ rape unless proven deceitful intent existed from the beginning.  A mature, educated adult’s consensual relationship cannot be retroactively termed rape due to a failed relationship. 
• SC/ST Act Misuse: Caste-based allegations must be substantiated; false claims undermine genuine cases. 

POCSO Act | “Child Specific” Procedural Safeguards Can't Be Extended To Victim Who Attains Majority During Trial: Rajasthan High Court

(a) Case Title:

• Jasaram Pander v. State of Rajasthan & Connected Petitions 

(b) Court: 

• High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur 

(c) Date of Decision: 

• 27th May 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justice Farjand Ali 

Key Facts

• The petition challenged the denial of exemption from Section 33(2) of POCSO Act (requiring cross-examination questions to be routed through the Special Court) after the victim attained majority. 
• Allegations: FIRs registered under Sections 376(D), 363 IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 POCSO Act for sexual assault of minor victims. 
• Victims turned 18 during trial; accused sought direct cross-examination, arguing Section 33(2) POCSO no longer applied. 

Legal Issue: 

Whether Section 33(2) of POCSO Act (protective cross-examination for child victims) continues to apply after the victim attains majority (18 years) during trial?  

High court's analysis:

The High Court interpreted the definition of “Child” under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and concluded that a “child” is a person who is below 18 years of age. "Child" under POCSO is strictly biological age, not mental age.  It further observed that Section 33(2) of the said Act mandates Special Court to relay cross-examination questions to the child.

Key Holdings: 

• Age at Trial is Determinative: Procedural safeguards under Section 33(2) cease once the victim turns 18, as they no longer qualify as a "child". 
• Legislative Intent: Protections are age-specific and not perpetual. Trauma mitigation is linked to minority status. 
• Fair Trial Rights (Article 21): Accused has a right to direct cross-examination of adult witnesses to ensure a fair defense. 

Judgment:

The High Court allowed the petitions: Victims who attained majority must be cross-examined directly by defense counsel. Trial courts may regulate cross-examination to prevent harassment but cannot enforce Section 33(2) for adults. 

Clarification:

Substantive POCSO provisions (e.g., punishment) apply based on victim’s age at the time of offence.  Procedural protections (e.g., in-camera trial under Section 37) lapse upon majority unless court orders otherwise.