Back
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL
Lalu Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(C.T. Ravikumar, J.) :
Leave granted.
1. The captioned Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.07.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16825 of 2018. The said Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of FIR dated 21.02.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 28 of 2018 registered under Sections 376 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the ‘IPC’) at Police Station Nandganj in Ghazipur District of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In view of the fact that quashment of FIR was sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749. It was held therein that the High Court could exercise its power of judicial review in Criminal matters and it could exercise the power either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C’), to prevent the abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Nomenclature under which a petition is filed is not quite relevan
Rape – Consensual sex between two adults is not rape.
It is necessary to examine FIR, statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate First Class to find out correct factual matrix of issue - Sum and substance of decis....
The court ruled that allegations of rape under Section 376 IPC were not established, allowing quashing of the FIR based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the parties' subsequent marria....
The court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, and quashing of proceedings is not warranted unless allegations do not constitute a cognizable ....
The court held that the FIR for rape was quashed as the relationship was consensual, and continuation of proceedings would cause undue prejudice, affirming the importance of consent and the role of c....
The consent of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a 'misconception of fact' where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act.
There is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. If accused has not made promise with sole intention to seduce prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
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
