Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Dharmender Hooda – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.") against the impugned order dated 03.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Case No. SC505/2022 titled as "State v. Dharmender".
2. Brief facts as disclosed in the petition are that prosecutrix /respondent no. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner on 17.12.2021 and on basis of same FIR was got registered for offences punishable under Sections 376/377 Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The prosecutrix/respondent no. 2 alleged that in the year of 2018, petitioner had sent friend request on Face book and they become friends as both belong to the same village and knew each other very well through their families. They remained friends for around 3 years. Petitioner convinced the family members of the prosecutrix and planned a tour of Vaishno Devi on 22.07.2021. As per complaint, it is alleged that in Vaishno Devi for the first time the petitioner forcibly made physical relation with prosecutrix without her consent and after that promised to marr
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.
Consent obtained under false promises of marriage vitiates consent and constitutes a basis for rape charges under Section 375 IPC.
The necessity for grave suspicion and prima facie evidence to frame charges under Section 376 IPC.
The necessity to establish a prima facie case at the stage of framing of charge and the power of the Sessions Court to commit a case for trial if an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Sessio....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of prima facie material in framing charges and highlights the need for evidence to support allegations of criminal acts.
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.
Criminal intimidation requires specific threats intended to induce alarm; general expressions of sympathy do not establish the basis for charges under relevant sections of IPC.
Consent for physical relationships is valid if based on genuine intentions to marry, distinguishing false promises from breaches of promise.
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.
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
