Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, N. KOTISWAR SINGH
Prashant – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?
Key Points: - The appeal concerns quashing of FIR No. 272 of 2019 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and the exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. (!) (!) - Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual and that mere breakup cannot result in criminal proceedings; crucial ingredients of 376(2)(n) IPC are absent. (!) (!) - The High Court’s order dismissing the 482 CrPC application was set aside; FIR and related proceedings were quashed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 16.10.2023 in CRL.M.C 6066 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” for short) whereby the High Court refused to quash FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), the appellant is before this Court.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC. As per the said FIR, the complainant alleged that she was living with her brother and working at the Vodafone Call Centre. The appellant herein came in contact with the complainant in the year 2017 and they had a conversation on call and got to know each other. They first met in November 2017 and again in April 2018 at a park. The complainant further stated that in January 2019, the appellant found her address and had a forceful sexual relationshi
Repeated rape and criminal intimidation – Mere breakup of relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings – What was consensual relationship between parti....
The court has discretionary power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings, and it must consider the nature of the offences, the possibility of conviction, and the parties' settlement.
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court does not have to go in detail by way of minute examination about correctness or otherwise of facts alleged – Court has to examine the same by taking....
Rape – Consensual sex between two adults is not rape.
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....
(1) Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Mere fact that parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case.(2) Rape – Offe....
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....
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.
The inherent powers of the court can quash criminal proceedings when the victim expresses no desire to proceed, especially following reconciliation and marriage, despite serious charges under IPC.
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
