Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G.Girish
Pradeep – Appellant
Versus
Station House Officer, Fort Police Station – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the relationship and complaints (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's contention regarding consensual relationship (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's analysis of consent in rape allegations (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. judicial precedents on consent and misconceptions (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. conclusion that prosecution lacks essential requirements (Para 14) |
ORDER :
2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:
3. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that none of the offences alleged in this case are legally sustainable. According to the petitioner, the consensual relationship between him and the de facto complainant will not constitute the offence of rape. He denied the accusation that he had offered to marry the de facto complainant.
5. As regards the offences under Sections 493 and 496 I.P.C incorporated in the final report, it has to be stated that a prosecution for the commission of the aforesaid offences is, prima facie, not maintainable since under Section 198 Cr.P.C, the court concerned is proscribed from taking cognizance of the said offences except upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be co
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.
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 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 obtained under a false promise of marriage is vitiated and does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 of IPC.
Consent given based on a promise of marriage does not automatically negate consent; a court must evaluate the nature of the promise and intentions.
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.
Point of Law : Where prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for accused and not solely on account of misconception created by accused, or where an accused, o....
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.
Prolonged consensual relationships undermine claims of rape under false promises, indicating that consent may not be vitiated by misconception of fact.
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 ....
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
