1

     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
     Bengaluru)

     ALOKA KUMAR                                                                 Petitioner(s)

                                                          VERSUS

     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.

     CORAM :
                                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.

     For Respondent(s)

                           UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                                                 O R D E R

                         Delay condoned.

     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
SWETA DHYANI
Date: 2018.07.06
                                                                                               lived
10:17:38 IST
Reason:

     together for six years. The petitioner had promised to marry her

     but backed down. Thus, she was induced for the intercourse during
                                                 2

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

same terms.




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
1
  (2008) 2 SCC 238
2
  (2011) 12 SCC 189
3
  (2011) 1 SCC 141
4
  (2014) 1 SCC 188
                                            3

issue is also discussed in an Article published in (2012) 4 SCC

J-19.









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

September, 2018.




(SWETA DHYANI)                                          (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                                     BRANCH OFFICER