SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Bapun @ Mrunmaya Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Another – Respondents
CRLREV No. 250 of 2022
Decided On : 22-12-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sudipto Panda
For the Respondent: Ch. Satyajit Mishra

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.

Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 417, 376(2)(n) - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) - Challenge to order rejecting discharge petition - Allegations of false promise of marriage leading to physical relationship - Court ruled that allegations did not meet elements of defined offences; hence, charge under relevant sections unjustified. (Paras 6, 10, 21, 22)

(B) Judicial Review - Mandate for courts to ensure sufficient grounds for framing charges - Impugned order lacked adequate reasoning to uphold charges. (Paras 21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, who operates a shop, was in a consensual relationship with the victim, which later led to allegations of rape and cheating after a fallout exacerbated by domestic issues, resulting in a filed FIR.

Findings of Court:
The court found no sufficient grounds to uphold the framing of charges under the respective sections and said the trial court's previous order did not provide adequate justification.

Issues: The court examined if the allegations were sufficient to establish a case for the alleged offences, focusing on the aspects of consent and the nature of the relationship between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the victim was a consenting adult, the allegations did not constitute an offence under the provided sections of law, and emphasized the necessity for clear and cogent reasons in judicial orders.

Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for reconsideration.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments against allegations and legal precedents (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15)
3. court's analysis of the charges (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
4. conclusion and order of the court (Para 22 , 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. In this CRLREV, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court under S.C. & ST (PA) Act- cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Angul in C.T. (Special) Case No.01 of 2021 rejecting his petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharging him from the alleged offences under Sections 417 / 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (PA) Act while discharging him from the offence under Section 493 of the I.P.C.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. Brief fact of the case is that the Petitioner has a shop where Xerox facility is available besides sale of clothes and chappals and the victim was a customer. Four months prior to lodging of the FIR i.e. 06.11.2020, the Petitioner allegedly called over her phone and expressed his love with a promise to marry her and take her away. In the process of repeated phone calls, both of them developed love for each other leading to physical relationship. At times, the Petitioner used to call her and say that they would flee together. Accordingly, on 25.09.2020 she went to Angul bus stand and subsequently, when the Petitioner arrived, they both went to Tikarpada on his bike. They had physical relationship at a lonely place in the jungle. Thereafter, they returned to Angul and later she returned home by bus. On 26.10.2020, being called over phone, she went to Angul and they had kept physical relationship again at a lonely place in the jungle. On that day, her husband had followed her and found them at the traffic square. When she returned home, her husband inquired her about her relation with the Petitioner and also called the Petitioner to which the Petitioner allegedly replied to have left her after keeping physical relationship. On 05.11.2020, when her husband drove her out of the house, she came to the Petitioner who said he neither knew her nor recognized her. Therefore, the victim lodged the FIR before the I.I.C., Banarpal Police Station. The same was registered as Banarpal P.S against the Petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 493/417/ 376(2)(n) of the I.P.C.

3. Thereafter, investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation, statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C were recorded and medical examination was conducted of the Opposite Party No.2/ victim. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 493/ 417/376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PA) Act on 29.12.2020 and thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions.

4. During the course of trial, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him of the charges leveled against him before the learned Judge, Special Court under S.C. & ST (PA) Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Angul. Learned Judge, Special Court under S.C. & ST (PA) Act-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Angul vide order dated 16.05.2022 while discharging the Petitioner of the offence under Section 493 of the I.P.C. has rejected the petition for discharge of the offences punishable under Section 417 /376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PA) Act. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present CRLREV.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, on completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Petitioner for the offences under Sections 493/ 417/376(2)(n) of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(w)/3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PA) Act on 29.12.2020 and thereafter, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top