Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Manish Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 333 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 15882 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-01-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 – Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) – Rape, hurt, intentional insult and criminal intimidation – Summoning order partly quashed by High Court – Complainant is a major girl and was working at a Diagnostic Centre when she came in contact with appellant on Social Media – She had herself admitted that despite her reservations about engaging in a physical relationship with appellant, she trusted him and had feelings for him – Both appellant and complainant were major and both were competent enough to make rational decisions – Complainant had agreed to indulge in intimate relations with appellant on accord of her own desires and not on the basis of any false promise of marriage made by appellant – While present case may involve breach of promise, it does not constitute a case of an inherently false promise to marry – Based on circumstances, it cannot be concluded that appellant obtained complainant’s consent to engage in a physical relationship under pretext of a false promise of marriage – Complainant’s act of declining appellant’s proposal of marriage shows that it was not appellant who failed to stand firm upon his promise if any such promise was made by appellant at any point in time – Theory put forth by prosecution in charge-sheet that appellant induced complainant to indulge in physical relations under false promise of marriage is neither corroborated nor established by best evidence available on record – Complainant has not uttered a single word which shows that she was maligned or abused by appellant for belonging to a particular caste – Ingredients of offences alleged under SC/ST Act, against appellant are ex-facie not made out from highest allegations as set out in charge-sheet – Present case appears to be one where a consensual physical relationship between two adults has turned sour due to certain intervening events – Prosecution of appellant for offences alleged would tantamount to sheer abuse of process of law – Impugned order set aside and summoning order as well as criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Appellant through this appeal by special leave seeks to assail order dated 30th August, 2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby, it partially allowed Criminal Appeal No. 227/2024 preferred by appellant, who had sought to question legality and validity of order dated 24th August, 2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gazipur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 760 of 2023, summoning appellant and his father to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Findings of Court:
Summoning order dated 24th August, 2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act Gazipur, and all proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506, IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act deserve to be, and are hereby quashed. Impugned order is set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over allegations of sexual offenses, including rape, under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act (!) .
The appellant, Manish Yadav, is accused of engaging in physical relations with the complainant, who is a major woman working at a Diagnostic Centre, after meeting her on social media (!) (!) .
The complainant admitted that she trusted the appellant and had feelings for him, despite her reservations about engaging in physical relations. She also acknowledged that their initial relationship was consensual and not based on any false promise of marriage (!) (!) .
The prosecution alleged that the appellant forced himself on the complainant multiple times and made a false promise of marriage to induce her into sexual acts. However, the court found that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the appellant had no intention of marrying her from the outset or that he made a false promise with fraudulent intent (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that consent given by the complainant was voluntary and not under misconception of fact, particularly noting that her act of declining marriage proposal indicates that the appellant did not breach any promise or mislead her under false pretenses (!) (!) (!) .
The court also observed that there was no evidence of caste-based abuse or malignment by the appellant, and the allegations under the SC/ST Act were not substantiated (!) .
Ultimately, the court concluded that the relationship was consensual between two adults and that the case was a souring of a consensual relationship rather than an act of coercion or deception warranting criminal prosecution (!) (!) .
As a result, the order summoning the appellant and proceedings against him under the specified sections were quashed, and the appeal was allowed, indicating that the criminal proceedings were deemed an abuse of process of law (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements such as non-consent or false promise of marriage, and the evidence did not support the charges under the relevant statutes (!) (!) .
The case underscores that consensual sexual relations between adults, even if subsequent relationships turn sour, do not automatically constitute criminal offenses unless there is clear evidence of coercion, deception, or false promises made with fraudulent intent.
ORDER :
(Sandeep Mehta, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant through this appeal by special leave seeks to assail the order dated 30th August, 2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,1[Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’], whereby, it partially allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 227/2024 preferred by the appellant, who had sought to question the legality and validity of the order dated 24th August, 2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gazipur2[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court’], in Special Sessions Trial No. 760 of 2023, summoning the appellant and his father, Rajnath Yadav, to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter, referred to as, ‘IPC’] and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19894[Hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST Act’].
4. The High Court vide Impugned Order dated 30th August, 2024, had partly allowed the criminal appeal, by quashing the summoning order issued by the trial Court against the father of the appellant, namely, Rajnath Yadav and upholding the summoning order issued against the appellant. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
5. Notice of the present special leave petition was served on respondent No. 2 i.e., the complainant/victim5[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Complainant’], but no one has appeared on her behalf.
6. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant befriended the complainant over a social media website, namely Instagram, which quickly bloomed into a romantic relationship. The appellant allegedly promised the complainant that he would marry her and they would live together as husband and wife. Under the pretence of the said promise of marriage, the appellant established physical relations with the complainant frequently at different places viz. Gazipur, Banaras, etc. On account of the repeated physical relations, the complainant conceived in December, 2022 and the appellant forced her to undergo an abortion by taking medication. Subsequently, the appellant began assaulting her and used derogatory caste-based slurs, imputing that he would not marry her since he was a Yadav, but she belonged to a lower caste. Following a complaint from the complainant with these allegations, an FIR6[Crime No. 387 of 2023], dated 5th August, 2023, came to be registered against the appellant under Sections 376, 313, 323, 504, 506, IPC and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act at the P.S. Kotwali, District Gazipur. After investigation, a charge sheet for the aforementioned offences was filed against the appellant, while leaving out the offence under Section 313 IPC.
7. The trial Court, vide order dated 24th August, 2023, summoned the appellant and his father for the aforesaid offences, which stands partially affirmed by the High Court(supra).
8. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh and have gone through the material placed on record.
9. At the outset, we may note that the complainant is a major girl and was working at a Diagnostic Centre in Varanasi when she came in contact with the appellant on the social media website, namely, Instagram.
10. It will be germane to reproduce the statement of the complainant recorded during the course of investigation under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737[For short, ‘CrPC’], which provides the substratum of allegations set out against the appellant in the case at hand, and the same reads as follows: -
Victim’s Name: X.X.X.
X.X.X. stated under oath that she met Manish Yadav, son of Rajnath Singh, on Instagram in January 2022. Their friendship started with a message from Manish, which eventually led to mutual liking and in-person meetings. In May 2022, Manish called her to meet at his friend's place, whe
Rape – Consensual sexual intercourse between two adults is not rape.
Establishing criminal liability for rape based on a false promise of marriage requires evidence of original intent to deceive; an absence of such intent invalidates claims of rape under IPC.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
Rape – Misconception of fact – There is distinction between rape and consensual intercourse – Accused is not liable for offence of rape if victim has wilfully agreed to maintain sexual relations – Th....
Rape - Conviction confirmed and Bail rejected - Accused who gave promise to prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and prosecutrix gave consent for sexual intercourse on such an a....
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
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
