Back
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Kunwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
DState Of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Counter affidavit, filed by the State, is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, for opposite party No.2 and Sri Rajeev Kr. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present application has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 504 of 2019 (State vs. Kunwar Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 4 of 2018, u/s 376, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana, District Maharajganj, including the charge sheet dated 4.8.2018, cognizance order dated 14.3.2019 as well as impugned order dated 11.2.2020, pending before C.J.M., Maharajganj.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that from the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim/opposite party No.2 u/s 164 Cr.P.C., it is clear that initially, the applicant and opposite party No.2 were in a relationship and subsequently, their marriage was fixed. During that period, the applicant and opposite party No.2 indulged in a consensual physical relationship. As far as the allegation of an intimate moment video is concerned, no such video is part of the case diary. It is lastly submitted that the only allegation against the a
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of consent under Section 375 IPC and the distinction between a false promise of marriage and breach of promise, emphasizing t....
Consent obtained through a false promise of marriage can vitiate consent under IPC, but mere breach of promise does not constitute rape; the context and intentions of both parties must be carefully e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between false promise and breach of promise in cases involving consent under Section 375 IPC, emphasizing the requirement for an ac....
Consent obtained under a false promise or misconception does not constitute valid consent for the purposes of Sec. 375 of IPC; a mere breach of promise does not amount to rape.
The distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise, and the need for active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act to establish whether the consent was vitiated....
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is vitiated and does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 of IPC.
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.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute a false promise under Section 376 IPC unless it is shown that the promise was made without intention to uphold it.
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
