Back
D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, INDIRA BANERJEE
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Key Points: - The Supreme Court explains Section 482 CrPC as an overriding provision to exercise inherent jurisdiction to advance ends of justice, prevent abuse of process, and give effect to CrPC orders; it cautions against quashing when it would deny prosecution opportunity to establish its case. (!) - There is a distinction between a false promise to marry made in bad faith with no intention to uphold it (misconception of fact) and a mere breach of a promise; consent under Section 375 requires active, reasoned deliberation and cannot be based on a false promise unless proven the promise was false and made with no intention to adhere to it at the time. (!) (!) (!) - The decision clarifies that consent premised on misconception of fact arising from a promise to marry can vitiate consent under IPC Section 90; however, in this case the FIR did not establish that the promise to marry was false or given with no intention to adhere to it at the time, and the complainant continued to have sexual relations despite caste-related concerns, undermining a finding of false promise. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The SC/ST Act provisions relevant at the time of the WhatsApp messages (2015) did not exist in their amended form; the High Court quashed the FIR considering no cognizable offence on face of FIR; the Supreme Court reversed, quashing the FIR, and held that the allegations on face of FIR did not constitute offences under SC/ST Act as it stood prior to amendments and that the FIR should be quashed. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court emphasizes it does not delve into veracity of facts or weigh competing evidence when exercising 482 CrPC; the limited question is whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a cognizable offence. (!) (!) - The appeal results in allowing the appeal and quashing the FIR dated 17 May 2016; High Court’s rejection of 482 CrPC application was set aside. (!)
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
1. Leave granted.
2. By its judgment dated 7 February 2019, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973[“CrPC”]. The appellant sought the quashing of a First Information Report [“FIR”] registered against him on 17 May 2016 with the Panvel City Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code[“IPC”] and Sections 3(1) (u), (w) and 3(2) (vii) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2015)[ “SC/ST Act”]. The second respondent is the complainant.
3. The allegations in the FIR are summarised thus:
(i) According to the complainant, she and the appellant have known each other since 1998. She would speak to the appellant on the phone and met him regularly as early as 2004. In 2008 the appellant proposed marriage and assured her that their belonging to different castes would not be a hindrance. The appellant allegedly promised to marry the complainant after the marriage of his elder sister. On 23 January 2009 the appellant allegedly re-iterated his promise
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
