Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Santhosh Shetty, S/o. Anand Shetty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Sub Inspector Of Police, Kundapura Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented By Its State Public Prosecutor High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. Nagaprasanna, J.) :
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.1926 of 2023 pending before the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kundapura registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 471, 420, 109, 504 r/w 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri S. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing respondent No.1 and Sri P.B. Umesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Sans details, facts germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 1st petitioner, in terms of the averments in the petition, is said to be working as a Supervisor in Royal Kerabiam Group International Shipping Company at New Jersey, United States of America, and was looking for a girl to get married. Owing to the said desire, he posted his profile, on matrimonial website called ‘Shetty Matrimonial’. After posting his profile, the 1st petitioner comes in contact with the 2nd respondent. Both began talks. This happens up to 07-01-2023. The 1st petitioner was in India at that point in time. On 08-01-2023, the 1st petitioner and the complainant met at a temple in Hak
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for rape; a distinction exists between a false promise of marriage and a breach of promise.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
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 relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
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 ....
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.
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.
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.
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
