In the case of ABM & Anr v. State of Meghalaya & Anr victim had filed a complaint that she was assaulted and raped by his husband in April 2019, when she was returning from school and was waylaid by the petitioner who took her on his bike to his residence and there committed sexual assault on her. This assault continued a number of times and the victim was threatened not to reveal the same to anyone. It was only after she became pregnant and was noticed by her family members that she revealed the truth to them upon which Victim’s father had lodged the FIR under Section 506 IPC read with Section 5(j)(ii)(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and she was accordingly sent for medical examination.
The contention from both Parties
The complaint submitted that living together as husband and wife blessed with a child who died a week after its birth according to local customs and culture prevailing among the Garo Schedule Tribe. He has further submitted that the pendency of the criminal case has caused an atmosphere of unease and tension between the parties both parties have decided to settle the matter amicably outside court Victim’s father agreeing not to pursue the case against the accused anymore.
The defendant has submitted that this is not a fit case for this Court to intervene in the exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the FIR.
Conclusion of Court
The victim was allegedly forced to have intercourse with the accused till she became pregnant, as noted by the Meghalaya High Court panel. The parties to the complaint have reached an amicable settlement on the basis that they currently live together as husband and wife. As a result, they have now petitioned this court to exercise its inherent authority under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to quash the FIR.
The court noted that the FIR’s contents, the survivor’s testimony, and the body of evidence documented in the case diary all demonstrated that the parties’ sexual acts were not consenting. The victim specifically indicated that the accused physically abused and threatened her to the point that she withheld the facts until the pregnancy became obvious. The court refused to dismiss the FIR because it believed that the case did not qualify for the use of its inherent authority to end the continuing criminal investigation and that the accused had shown a criminal nature.