ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 19531/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-01-2018
in CRLP No. 711/2017 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
ALOKA KUMAR Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(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.)
Date : 02-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kunal Verma, Adv.
Mr. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR
Mr. Piyush Bhardwaj, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. This petition has been preferred against order rejecting
prayer for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
2. The criminal case registered by respondent No.2 is to the
Signature Not Verified
effect that the petitioner and daughter of respondent No.2
Digitally signed by
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.
3. In connected matter, SLP(crl.) 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
4. 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 versus Sukhrana Bai1; Pyla Mutyalamma Alias
Satyavathi versus Pyla Suri Demudu2;Chanmuniya versus Virendra
Kumar Singh Kushwaha3 and Badshah versus Urmila Badshah Godse4. The
(2008) 2 SCC 238
(2011) 12 SCC 189
(2011) 1 SCC 141
(2014) 1 SCC 188
issue is also discussed in an Article published in (2012) 4 SCC
5. To consider the above issue, we have requested Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, present in Court, to assist
the Court as amicus.
6. Having regard to the nature of issue involved, we also issue
notice to Attorney General for India and request the learned
Attorney General to depute an Additional Solicitor General to
assist the Court.
List the matter for further consideration on 12 th
(SWETA DHYANI) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT BRANCH OFFICER