Back
MAHESHAN NAGAPRASANNA
Prashanth Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of Crime No. 64 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of the IPC for it having been turned down by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3357 of 2022. Petitioner is accused No. 1 in the subject crime.
2. Heard Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. H.S. Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State,
3. Brief facts germane are as follows:
Ms. Ruthu Helan registers a complaint against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 417 and 420 of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner and the complainant were acquaintances who met when they were working in the same establishment and the petitioner was her team leader. It is alleged that the petitioner proposed to marry the complainant which was initially rejected by the complainant but later on several promises being made in front of family and friends by the petitioner, she acceded to the request of marriage with the petit
Breach of promise of marriage does not attract the offense of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.
The seriousness of the offence and prima facie evidence from the FIR are crucial factors in deciding on anticipatory bail.
The consensual nature of a relationship and the potential impact of granting anticipatory bail on the investigation were central to the court's decision.
The court's decision was based on the consideration that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the conditions imposed to address the apprehension of absconding or ....
A promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the relationship was consensual and there is no evidence of a false promise from the beginning.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that simply establishing a physical relationship on the promise of marriage would not attract the offense under Section 376 IPC.
A married person cannot induce another married person into a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.
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
