(Adarsh Kumar Goel and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)
Aloka Kumar ______________________________________ Petitioner
v.
The State of Karnataka & Ors. _____________________ Respondent(s)
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 19531/2018, decided on July 2, 2018
(IA No. 76208/2018-Condonation of Delay in Filing and IA No. 76210/2018-Exemption from Filing C/C of The Impugned Judgment and IA No. 76209/2018-Exemption From Filing O.T.)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. This petition has been preferred against order rejecting prayer for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
3. The criminal case registered by respondent No. 2 is to the effect that the petitioner and daughter of respondent No. 2 lived together for six years. The petitioner had promised to marry her but backed down. Thus, she was induced for the intercourse during the cohabitation on that consideration and not by free consent. The petitioner committed offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial Court having taken cognizance, the petitioner approached the High Court for quashing. The High Court rejected the prayer for quashing.
4. In connected matter, SLP(c) No. 3348/2018, notice has been issued and stay granted. Accordingly, let this petition be heard along with the said matter. We also grant interim orders in same terms.
5. During the course of hearing, one of the question which has been taken up for consideration whether, on account of long cohabitation, even if the relationship is held to be consensual and the petitioner is not held liable for the offence alleged, the petitioner can be fastened the civil liability treating the relationship to be de facto marriage in view of long cohabitation. This interpretation may have to be considered so that a girl is not subjected to any exploitation and is not rendered remediless even if a criminal offence is not made out. Somewhat identical issue has been subject matter of consideration in several decisions, including Vidhyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai1; Pyla Mutyalamma Alias Satyavathi v. Pyla Suri Demudu2; Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha3 and Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse4. The issue is also discussed in an Article published in (2012) 4 SCC J-19.
6. To consider the above issue, we have requested Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, present in Court, to assist the Court as amicus.
7. Having regard to the nature of issue involved, we also issue notice to Attorney General of India and request the learned Attorney General to depute an Additional Solicitor General to assist the Court.
8. List the matter for further consideration on 12th September, 2018.
———
1 (2008) 2 SCC 238
2 (2011) 12 SCC 189
3 (2011) 1 SCC 141
4 (2014) 1 SCC 188
