CASE BRIEF: NIMESHBHAI BHARATBHAI DESAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 732

CASE NAME	Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 732
CITATION	R/CR.MA/26957/2017
COURT	Gujarat High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala
PETITIONER	Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai
RESPONDENT	State of Gujarat
DECIDED ON	2nd April 2018

INTRODUCTION

On April 2, 2018, the Supreme Court of India rendered a decision in the matter of Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai vs. the State of Gujarat. The case deals with important criminal law problems, including how to strike a balance between the accused’s procedural rights and the court’s duty to uphold justice. The Gujarat High Court heard this case, which examined the applicability of important sections of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), such as Sections 482 and 202, as well as the need for judicial discretion during pre-trial investigations and the requirements of a fair trial.

The case’s main goal was to have criminal charges against petitioner Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai quashed due to procedural errors and a lack of adequate material evidence in the first investigation. The petitioner argued that when the accused lived outside the magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, the proceedings were started without the appropriate use of the judicial mind and without following the mandatory requirement of recording witness statements under Section 202 of the CrPC. According to the argument, this procedural error made the proceedings’ continuation unfair and a violation of the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The function of a magistrate in issuing the process under Section 204 of the CrPC was considered by the Supreme Court, which emphasized the significance of upholding legislative safeguards and making sure that such procedures are not capricious or arbitrary. The ruling made clear that magistrates must use their discretion carefully during pre-trial processes, particularly when dealing with accused individuals who live outside of their territorial jurisdiction. The Court further upheld the rule that harassment and malicious prosecution cannot be carried out through the criminal justice system.

This ruling has important ramifications for how the CrPC’s procedural safeguards are interpreted, highlighting the significance of judicial review and following legal requirements to protect the accused’s rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the need to guarantee a fair trial and avoid misuse of the judicial system by dismissing the proceedings. This case sets a standard for resolving procedural errors in criminal cases and preserving the rule of law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In May 2014, two doctors named Nikita and Nimeshbhai tied the knot. After six months, their marriage started to fall apart, according to the wife’s first information report (FIR) against her husband and in-laws. Her spouse would both coerce her into performing oral sex on her (cunnilingus) and compel her to have oral sex with him (fellatio). She claimed that he would rape her vaginally and coerce her into having sex with him. She did not allege forced anal intercourse in her FIR. As a result, she filed a formal complaint under IPC Sections 377 (unnatural offenses), 376 (penalty for rape), and 498-A (cruelty). The police had not finished looking into the claims at the time of this case’s hearing. In the interim, the husband and in-laws’ attorney filed a criminal miscellaneous application, pleading for the court to dismiss the FIR. The FIR against the in-laws was completely quashed by the court, while the charges of 375 and 377 against the spouse were quashed. Lastly, the court suggested that the FIR be amended to include a charge of 354 (outraging women’s modesty). I offer a preliminary observation regarding the marital rape topic in this instance before getting into the points.

ISSUES RAISED

Can a wife bring charges against her husband for rape, which is criminal under section 376 of the IPC?
Does section 377 of the IPC allow a wife to file a complaint against her husband for engaging in unnatural sex?
Does the idea of marital rape exist at all?
Would the husband’s initial information report’s complaints about certain acts qualify as an “unnatural offense” under section 377 of the IPC?
Would the wife’s accusations of sexual assault or sexual perversion against her husband qualify as physical and mental cruelty under section 498A of the IPC?
Can someone be convicted of insulting his own wife’s modesty?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

None of the elements necessary to create the offense punishable under sections 376 and 377 of the IPC are stated, even if the prosecution’s full case is accepted as accurate.
According to Mr. Gadhvi, there is no question that the first informant and Nimeshbhai, the original accused number one, are legally married. Under such conditions, the wife is not permitted to make a first information report for either an unnatural offense under section 377 of the IPC or a rape charge under section 376 of the IPC.
The husband’s parents have also been brought into the prosecution in a case that is mainly between a husband and wife. Even in any other case, the skilled counsel believes that the first informant’s accusations are absurd and unacceptable. In the aforementioned situations, the learned attorney requests that both of the accused applicants’ petitions be granted due to their merit and that the first information report be revoked in relation to the offense covered by sections 376 and 377 of the IPC.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The initial information report’s simple reading does reveal the commission of a very serious crime that is punishable by law, and the police should be allowed to conduct the investigation in compliance with the law. The learned Public Prosecutor believes that at this point, no intervention is necessary on the part of this Court. Under such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor prays that the accused’s two applications be denied because they lack merit.
Because it infringes upon the dignity and personhood of the LGBT people, Section 377 is unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21. Article 21 guarantees sexual rights and sexuality, which are components of human rights. Consensual same-sex behavior is not “against the order of nature,” according to scientific evidence. LGBT people don’t ask for any special treatment. They only want to be treated equally and not be punished for who they are.

JUDGMENT

Section 377 of the IPC allows a wife to file a complaint against her husband for engaging in unnatural sex. Section 377 IPC criminalizes no specific identity, orientation, or class of people. It only lists specific behaviors that, if carried out, would be illegal. In the case of unnatural offenses, consent is not a decisive factor; rather, section 377 of the IPC defines an offense as any offense that goes against the natural order and can be characterized as carnal penetration.
Making wife rape a crime will eliminate the harmful mindsets that encourage marital rape. A moral limit is established by such an action, alerting society to the fact that crossing the border will result in punishment. At that point, the husbands could start to understand that marital rape is wrong. The criminal penalty, in addition to recognition, should discourage husbands from raping their wives.

Women shouldn’t have to put up with violence and rape in their marriages. The first step in educating society that the dehumanizing treatment of women will not be accepted and that marital rape is not a husband’s privilege but rather a violent conduct and an injustice that needs to be criminalized is the complete statutory eradication of the marital rape exception.
The Criminal Misc. Application No. 26957 of 2017 is partially approved as a result. As far as the offense covered by sections 376 and 377 of the IPC is concerned, the first information report is revoked. Regarding the other offenses, the inquiry will continue in compliance with the law. In order to include section 354 of the IPC in the first information report, the investigating officer must submit a suitable report to the relevant court.

CONCLUSION

The ruling in Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai vs. the State of Gujarat by the Supreme Court highlights how important it is that magistrates follow the procedural safeguards outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), particularly when the accused lives outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Before issuing a process against such suspected individuals, a magistrate is required by Section 202 of the CrPC to carry out or oversee an investigation. This need is a legislative duty intended to maintain equity and avoid pointless litigation, not just a formality.

The Court closely examined the magistrate’s actions, emphasizing that the necessary investigation was not carried out prior to issuing the summons. It reiterated that due diligence and judicial application of mind must be followed when issuing processes under Section 204 CrPC, especially when non-compliance with Section 202 could result in misuse of the legal system. While balancing the complainant’s right to seek remedy, the bench emphasized that procedural safeguards are in place to protect people from needless harassment.

The ruling also addresses the more general idea of making sure that the criminal code is not abused as a means of pursuing frivolous or malicious legal actions. The Court underlined how important it is to protect the accused’s rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, especially when procedural errors jeopardize the trial’s impartiality. The Court aims to preserve procedural law’s spirit and letter by emphasizing the necessity for magistrates to behave sensibly and sensibly.

In conclusion, the judiciary’s dedication to maintaining procedural justice and avoiding the abuse of criminal law is demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the criminal proceedings against Nimeshbhai Bharatbhai Desai. The ruling highlights the importance of the legislative protections provided by Sections 202 and 204 of the CrPC in upholding a fair balance between the complainant’s and the accused’s rights.

The Court has set a crucial precedent for instances of this nature by ruling that judicial activities during pre-trial processes must be directed by diligence and adherence to procedural norms. This ruling reminds judges and subordinate courts to use their authority sensibly and to only start criminal cases when they are warranted. In the end, the ruling protects individual rights from capricious and unfair prosecution and enhances the integrity of the legal system.