Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Rajnish Singh @ Soni – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
Question 1? What is the distinction between rape and consensual intercourse in the context of a purported false promise of marriage? Question 2? What are the circumstances under which Section 90 IPC cannot be invoked to pardon a girl’s act and fasten criminal liability on the other party? Question 3? When should a court quash a criminal proceeding for offences under IPC when a prolonged live-in relationship with alleged false promise of marriage is involved?
JUDGMENT :
(Sandeep Mehta, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein has preferred the instant appeal by special leave, assailing the order dated 24th April, 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1[Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’] dismissing the petition filed by the appellant, being Application U/S 482 No. 43177 of 2022, for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1246 of 2022 arising out of chargesheet in Case Crime No. 269 of 2022 under Sections 376, 384, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘IPC’] at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah.
4. Brief facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the present appeal are reproduced hereinbelow.
5. Ms. A, respondent No. 2-complainant3[For short, ‘complainant’], lodged an FIR in Case Crime No. 269 of 2022 dated 5th July, 2022, against the appellant at Police Station Bakewar, District Etawah alleging, inter alia, that she is a resident of village Kudaria and was qualified with degrees in M.Com and B.Ed. and since 2008, she had been serving on the post of Lecturer in AFS Bhemora College in Lucknow.
6. It was alleged t
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....
Prolonged consensual relationships negate claims of rape based on false promises of marriage.
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
(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....
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.
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.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
The court established that consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless there is clear evidence of deceit or lack of consent, emphasizing the importance ....
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
