Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Shashank C. S/o. Late D. Chandrashekar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Represented By SPP., High Court, Bengaluru – Respondent
ORDER :
(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)
The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.40547/2024 arising out of crime No.246/2024 registered for offences punishable under Section s 376 , 420, 323, 504 and 109 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('the IPC ' for short).
2. Heard Shri B. Ravindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The facts in brief germane are as follows:
Respondent No.2 is the complainant. It is the case of the complainant so as the case of the prosecution that petitioner No.1 and the complainant were acquaintances for 8 years and have had relationship for over 8 years and the relationship being physical, as well. The talks of marriage take place between the families of both the petitioners and the complainant. The betrothal ceremony is also performed. The betrothal ceremony did not lead to the logical conclusion of marriage between the two, on the score of certain differences of opinion on manifold circumstances between the families of petitioner No.1 and the complainant. On the
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
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
