High CourtsSingle Bench(1979) 04 MAD CK 0002

E. Durai Raj vs State

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 April 1979 · Citation: (1980) LW(Cri) 36

HON’BLE JUDGES
Suryamurthy, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Mis. P. No. 1797 of 1979

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 307 words

Suryamurthy, J.—This is a petition under S. 482, Crl. P.C. to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crime No. 1029 of 1977 of the Minjur Police Station which has been registered under Ss.376 and 366, I.P.C. It would appear from the first information report in the case that the petitioner was having illicit intercourse with a girl below the age of 16 and that consequently she became pregnant. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner had intercourse with her for more than a year, even according to the first information

report, and as the girl herself has not made any complaint, no offence of rape has been committed. A man is said to commit rape when he has sexual intercourse with a woman with or without her consent when she is under sixteen years of age. Therefore, the consent of the minor girl is

immaterial. On the allegations in the first information report, there is a case for trial of the accused for an offence punishable under S. 376, I.P.C.

Investigation alone may reveal whether or not he has also committed the offence of kidnapping punishable under S. 366, I.P.C. under which also the first information report has been registered.

2.

Furthermore the Supreme Court has laid down in Kurukshetra University and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another, that the High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers under S. 482, Crl. P.C. cannot quash the first information report, more so when the police had not even commenced the investigation and no proceeding at all is pending in any Court in pursuance of the said F.I.R. That is the position here. Therefore,

this petition is dismissed.

3.

The respondent is directed to expedite the investigation and file the charge sheet within two months from this date.