IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Rajesh Kumar Kurrey S/o Shri Vashudev Kurrey - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Bemetara – Respondent
CRR No. 1361 of 2018
Decided On : 18-09-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397 and 401 – Criminal Revision – Charges framed under Sections 376, 506(B), and 323 of IPC – The applicant contended that the relationship was consensual as the victim is a major, thus no case of rape is made out – The court emphasized that the nature of consent and the circumstances surrounding the relationship must be determined at trial, not at the charge framing stage. (Paras 4, 11, 13)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction – The court reiterated that the scope of interference under Section 397 is limited, and the framing of charges should not be disturbed unless there is a gross error or non-compliance with legal provisions. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case: The victim alleged that the applicant, a police constable, had a physical relationship with her under false promises of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortion. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court: The court found that the applicant's defense regarding consent could not be considered at the charge framing stage, and the trial court's decision to frame charges was upheld. (Paras 13, 14)
Issues: The main issues were whether the relationship was consensual and if the charges were framed correctly under the law. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the determination of consent and the nature of the relationship must be established through evidence at trial, not prematurely at the charge framing stage. (Paras 11, 12)
Result: Criminal revision dismissed.
ORDER :
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Sections Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 16-10-2018 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) in Sessions Trial No 28 of 2018 by which the learned trial Court has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 376, 506(B) and 323 of IPC.
2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the complainant/victim lodged a report on 14.09.2017 before the Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara on the basis of which FIR was registered as crime No. 551/2017 for commission of offence under Sections 376, 506(B) and 323 of IPC mainly alleging that she is a student of MA First year and applicant is a resident of village Udka and posted as Constable at the relevant time. They had come in contact through one Kamal Bhaghel, started talking on telephone and later on it developed into love relationship and accordingly they used to meet oftenly. The applicant has taken her to lodge at Bemetara where he has made physical relationship with her and when she used to talk about their marriage he started avoiding her. It is also case of the prosecution that due to physical relationship made by the applicant the victim became pregnant, which was later on aborted by giving medicines. It is also the case of the prosecution that whenever victim asked the applicant to marry her, he refused to marry her. It has also been alleged that she was studying at Bilaspur and resides in a rented house where applicant also used to come and made physical relationship with her and whenever she asked for marriage he refused. On 12.09.2017 when her brother had gone to Bemetara for settling the issue, then he has assaulted them and caused injury and thereafter she lodged the FIR against the applicant.
3. After due investigation, on the basis of report lodged by the complainant/victim, Police have registered the aforesaid offense against the applicant. Further case of the prosecution is that the victim was also examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she reiterated the same stand and also stated that she has submitted a Form before the Registrar of Marriage i.e. Additional Collector Bemetara for registration of marriage, notice was issued and advertisement was prepared for publication on the date of marriage, but notice was not published in the newspaper. She has also stated that when she has gone to Police Station Bemetara on 12-9-2017 to rescue her brother, the applicant, his elder brother and others have assaulted her in the Police Station, threatened to kill her on telephone and also threatened to withdraw the complaint filed by her for which money was also offered. She has also stated that FIR was not registered and she was removed from the Police Station. She has also stated that he has made physical relationship with her forcefully and always called her for the same and if she refuses, he threatened her that he will upload her photographs in the website.
4.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant is a major lady and she is well aware of the consequences of physical relation and knowing the fact she has agreed for physical relation, as such, no case is made out against the applicant. He would further submit that before framing of charges the learned Trial Court should have seen that since it is a consensual act and victim is a major lady, therefore, as per Section 90 of IPC the applicant is entitled to get protection from the charge framed against him, thus the order of framing of charges dated 16.10.2018 deserves to be quashed. He would further submit that offence of rape is defined in Section 375 of IPC and from bare perusal of Section 375 of IPC, it is quite vivid that sexual intercourse must be against her will or without her consent or her consent has been obtained putting her under duress or threat. When a woman is a minor, even if s
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander & Another
State of Orissa vs. Dabendra Nath Padhi
The court emphasized that the determination of consent in sexual offenses must be established through trial evidence, not at the charge framing stage.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of unequivocal voluntary agreement in the victim's consent, the absence of fear or misconception, and the impact of the promise ....
The court established that consensual relationships, even if based on promises of marriage, do not amount to rape unless there is clear evidence of deception or coercion, and the standard for proceed....
The High Court's decision to discharge the accused based on delay in lodging the FIR was found to be erroneous and not in line with legal principles. The trial court was directed to proceed with the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court must carefully consider the sufficiency of grounds to proceed with the trial and interpret the consent of the victim in light of leg....
The court established that consensual sexual relations between adults, even under the pretense of marriage, do not constitute rape unless there is evidence of coercion or deceit in obtaining consent.
The court upheld the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, affirming sufficient grounds for framing charges of cruelty and abetment against the petitioners.
The court ruled that at the charge framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused, prioritizing witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence over the need for conclusive p....
Manipulative consent under false promises constitutes grounds for rape charges, while mere disappointment in a relationship does not equate to criminal intimidation.
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effe....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.