Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
BRIJ RAJ SINGH
Fatima Begum – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Home – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.53786 of 2022, Nazish Fatima Vs. Mohd. Abbas and others , Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow and the summoning order dated 19.11.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Lucknow.
2. It is the case of the applicants that applicant no.1 is an old aged house- wife, whereas applicant no.2 is the retired Engineer from the U.P. State Cement Corporation and applicant no.3 is an engineering graduate, currently working in a private multinational company at Noida. It is said that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by opposite party no.2 by making false allegation with oblique motive. It is said that applicant no.3 came in contact with opposite party no.2 through matrimonial website, namely, Shaadi.com and consequently both of them met at Barista Coffee House, Rana Pratap Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow on 04.09.2021. Opposite party no.2 introduced herself as a conservative and religious person and informed that she is pursuing D.Pharma from the Integral University, Lucknow. Opposite party no.2 told applicant no.3 tha
The distinction between consensual relationships and rape allegations is critical; failure to fulfill a marriage promise alone does not constitute rape absent of proof of bad faith or coercion.
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.
Consent under Section 375 cannot be considered valid if based on a false promise of marriage if the promise was not made with fraudulent intent from the outset. Subsequently, a prolonged consensual r....
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 misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 IPC; a consensual relationship does not amount to rape.
(1) Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Mere fact that parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case.(2) Rape – Offe....
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
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.
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
