Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 259
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.A. PATIL, J.
Lokesh L.V. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Chintamani Sub-Divn - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2858 of 2019
Decided On : 26-04-2019
C.V. Nagesh, Adv., Namitha Mahesh B.G., Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for a consent to be considered as obtained on a misconception of fact, it must be proved that the accused had no intention to marry from the inception.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Offences under Sections 376, 493 and 420 of IPC - Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - [MARRIAGE PROMISE] - [CRIMINAL LAW] - [IPC 375, IPC 376] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 375 and 376 of IPC and their interpretation in cases involving false promise of marriage and sexual intercourse. The court referred to the case of ANURAG SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH to establish that for a consent to be considered as obtained on a misconception of fact, it must be proved that the accused had no intention to marry from the inception. The court analyzed the engagement, messages exchanged, and the circumstances of the sexual contacts to conclude that the accused did not make a false promise and had no intention to marry. Therefore, the provisions of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC were not attracted, and the accused was granted anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/accused No.1 sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of demanding dowry and sexual assault under the pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that the accused had physical contact with her under false promise of marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the engagement and subsequent actions of the accused did not indicate a false promise of marriage. It concluded that the accused did not have the intention to marry from the inception, and therefore, the provisions of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC were not attracted.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused had made a false promise of marriage and had sexual contact with the complainant under such false promise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 375 and 376 of IPC in cases involving false promise of marriage and sexual intercourse. It emphasized the need to prove the absence of intention to marry from the inception to establish a consent obtained on a misconception of fact.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1, stating that the provisions of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC were not attracted in the case.
B.A. Patil, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.27/2019 of Chintamani Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 493 and 420 of IPC.
2. I have heard Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned senior counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Notice is served to the complainant. The complainant is present before the Court through the learned High Court Government Pleader she has submitted her say.
3. Gist of the complaint is that in a felicitation function, the mother of the complainant came in contact with the petitioner/accused No.1 and she gave a marriage proposal of the complainant to the petitioner/accused No.1. Subsequently, the marriage got fixed and therein, they demanded a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as dowry and other expenses. It is further alleged that accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as he had taken a hand loan. The mother of the complainant told to hold the engagement ceremony on 06.11.2017 and on 06.11.2017, the engagement ceremony has held in a conventional hall and accused No.1 got engaged with the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant received a telephone call from one Smt. Manjula, PSI of Chikkamagalur and she informed that the petitioner/accused No.1 is not having good character and has also received some money from her and she cautioned the complainant not to believe the petitioner/accused No.1. When the mother of the complainant questioned the same to petitioner/accused No.1, he avoided to give reply. It is further alleged that the complainant went to Delhi for coaching of IAS, at that time, accused No.1 came by collecting the mobile number from the mother of the complainant and telephoned the complainant and under the pretext of getting married with the complainant, on 17.04.2018, he met the complainant and on that day, they had physical contact. It is further alleged that on 26.04.2018, the complainant was picked up by the accused No.1 from Airport and took her to her house and there also, he had physical contact with the complainant. When the mother of the complainant asked the accused No.1 as to when he is going to marry her daughter, then accused No.1 told the mother of the complainant that he will marry her after the marriage of his sister. Thereafter, the complainant's family members went to Tumakuru along with elders and other family members. The family members of petitioner/accused No.1 and elders were also present. There, the accused persons told the complainant, that the present petitioner will not marry the complainant. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the engagement of both the complainant and the accused petitioner took place on 06.11.2017. Both were highly educated and the petitioner/accused No.1 was ever-ready and intending to marry the complainant. Nowhere, he stated that he is not going to marry the complainant. It is his further submission that in order to attract the provisions of Section 376 of IPC, from the inception of the said promise, under the pretext, if he is prosecuted of sexual assault and having intercourse with her, under such circumstance, it will be considered to be rape as contemplated under Section 375 of IPC. In order to substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANURAG SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, 2019 SCCOnline(SC) 509. It is his further submission that since from the inception, no such intention was there to the petitioner/accused No.1. Even as on 06.11.2017, the engagement was also performed. It is further submitted that the proposal has been made by the mother of the complainant in a felicitation function and in pursuance of the said offer, the engagement has also taken place. Further it
