Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Parveen Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3543/2021
Decided On : 17-01-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - Sections 323, 363, 377, 420, 506 of IPC read with section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (1) (w) (ii) and 3 (2) (v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [323, 363, 377, 420, 506, 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (1) (w) (ii), 3 (2) (v)] - The court discussed the consensual nature of the relationship, the distinction between false promise and breach of promise, and the legal principles related to consent and misconception of fact. The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the need to establish the false promise of marriage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable in CISF, was accused of promising to marry the prosecutrix and then raping her on several occasions, taking money from her, and making caste-based derogatory remarks. The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and he was willing to marry the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix was consensual and that the question of whether the consent was given under misconception or not would be seen in the trial. The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the need to establish the false promise of marriage.
Issues: Consensual nature of the relationship, distinction between false promise and breach of promise, and the legal principles related to consent and misconception of fact.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the consensual nature of the relationship, the distinction between false promise and breach of promise, and the legal principles related to consent and misconception of fact in granting bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner based on the consensual nature of the relationship and the need to establish the false promise of marriage.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with section 482 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in case FIR No. 157/2021 which was filed under Sections 323, 363, 377, 420, 506 of IPC read with section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (w) (i), 3 (1) (w) (ii) and 3 (2) (v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at P.S. Fatehpur Beri.
2. The facts in the present case are as follows -
i. The complainant is working in Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter "CISF") as a constable. The Prosecutrix filed a complaint on 30.03.2021 to the Deputy Director CISF (U), New Delhi against Parveen Kumar (petitioner herein) who is also a constable in CISF stating that their relationship began on 31.12.2018 and lasted for 4 years. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner herein promised to marry the prosecutrix and raped her on several occasions from mid-2019 till February 2021.
ii. It is stated that in March 2019, the petitioner took the complainant's ATM card and withdrew money from her account whenever he wanted. It is further stated that the complainant even took a loan of Rs. 1, 25, 000/- for the petitioner's needs. Further, it is stated that the petitioner had taken around Rs. 5-6 lakhs from the complainant in the form of cash and bank transactions.
iii. It is stated that on 12.06.2020, the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and made physical relations with the complainant thereafter she bled heavily from the vagina and the petitioner took the complainant to the Madan Mohan Hospital where the treatment could not take place. The complainant was then taken to Akash Hospital where she was treated. It is further stated that the petitioner threatened the complainant that if she told anyone about this, he might lose his job and she would face dire consequences.
iv. It is stated that the complainant made it clear to the petitioner well in advance that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and that there will be no future of their relationship, to which the petitioner persuaded that he would convince his parents and that the things will work out. The petitioner assured her that their belonging to different castes would not be a hindrance to their marriage.
v. It is stated that on 03.12.2020 the couple solemnized their marriage at Prachhin Hanuman Mandir, Delhi and following this the couple started living in Arjun Garh for 14 days where after the petitioner went to his battalion in Ranchi. It is stated that the complainant's family visited the family of the petitioner where they got to know that the family of petitioner did not agree for the marriage since inception and that the petitioner was engaged to some other girl and thereafter the petitioner stopped picking and replying to the complainant's phone calls and messages respectively.
vi. It is stated that the petitioner used to beat her and make forceful physical relations with her and also used to make caste based derogatory abuses/remarks.
vii. It is also stated that the petitioner made the complainant shift her house to a rented accommodation in Aya Nagar, New Delhi where they started living together.
viii. Consequent to the FIR, a second complaint dated 13.06.2021 was filed at PS Fatehpur Beri in which the complainant stated that she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe category and the petitioner usually uttered and made caste specific derogatory remarks. It was further stated that the petitioner started pressurising and threatening the complainant to retract her complainant and the FIR. It is further stated that one D.R. Meenu working in Delhi Police asa Sub-Inspector who is the friend of the petitioner was trying to settle this matter by exerting pressure on the complainant.
3. The chargesheet stands filed. It is stated in the chargesheet that during investigation it was found that the petitioner lured the complainant and forced himself on the complainant on 12.06.2020 and then threatened the complainant no
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between false promise and breach of promise, and the legal principles related to consent and misconception of fact.
Consent to engage in a sexual relationship is not vitiated by a promise of marriage unless the promise is proven to be made in bad faith or with no intention to adhere to it from inception.
Consent given under a false promise to marry must be proven as knowingly false from the outset for an accusation of rape to succeed; consensual relationships later turning sour do not invoke criminal....
Misconception of fact – Merely because physical relations were established on a promise to marry, it would not, by itself, amount to rape.
Rape case – Gran of Bail - Consent of prosecutrix – Issues to be decided at Trial – No criminal antecedents of accused
The legal principle established is that consent given under a false promise of marriage must involve an active and reasoned deliberation, and the promise of marriage must have been a false promise gi....
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
