Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Jagdish Rath – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of petition and its basis (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. defense arguments and rationale (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's analysis on charge framing (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. nature of allegations and alleged offenses (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of petition (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (ORAL)--The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 401 and 482 Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the learned ASJ/FTC/Patiala House Court, New Delhi in SC No. 266/2018 arising out of FIR No. 579/2017 registered under Sections 376/506 IPC at Police Station Vasant Kunj (South), vide which the learned ASJ has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 354C/376(2)(n)/506 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order shows complete non-application of mind, inasmuch as the allegations levelled against the petitioner are baseless and the order is a mere reiteration of the allegations in the FIR. It is also submitted that even otherwise, a reading of the allegations levelled in the FIR and the material filed alongwith the charge sheet, do not disclose any
The court reaffirmed that at the stage of charge framing, the focus is on whether a prima facie case exists, restricting judicial inquiry to grave suspicions, not evidentiary details.
The promise to marry cannot justify consent to sexual relations if proven false; each case's uniqueness must be examined to assess consent's legitimacy.
Consent for physical relationships is valid if based on genuine intentions to marry, distinguishing false promises from breaches of promise.
The main legal point established is the requirement for a prima facie case and the judicial duty to weigh the evidence before framing charges, especially in cases involving false promise of marriage ....
The court reiterated that a promise of marriage does not constitute consent in cases of sexual assault, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence for charge framing.
A prolonged consensual relationship undermines claims of rape based on a false promise of marriage, and insufficient evidence precludes charges under the IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Consent obtained under false promises of marriage vitiates consent and constitutes a basis for rape charges under Section 375 IPC.
The allegations of false promise to marriage and consensual relation do not constitute rape under relevant IPC sections, as insufficient grounds were identified to sustain the charges.
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
