Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Vivek Chandra - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 979 of 2021 (Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.)
Decided On : 26-09-2022
FIR - Alleged Rape and Threat - IPC 376, IPC 506 - Section 375 of IPC, Consent, Threat Perception, Breach of Trust - Court's interpretation of consent and threat perception influenced the decision to quash the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused had eloped with her under false assurances of marriage and later denied to solemnize the marriage, threatening to make public videos and MMS. The chargesheet was submitted for offences under IPC 376 and IPC 506.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the concept of consent under Section 375 of IPC and the alleged threat perception. It found that the complainant had willingly entered into a consensual sexual relationship with the accused for several years. The court concluded that the offence under Section 376 of IPC was not established.
Issues: Interpretation of consent and threat perception under Section 375 of IPC, and the applicability of the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of consent and threat perception as per Section 375 of IPC, and the distinction between breach of trust and the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the C482 Application and quashed the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1110 of 2021, State Vs. Vivek Chandra.
JUDGMENT :
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
An FIR, being an FIR No. 206 dated 29th August 2020, which was got registered at Police Station, Raipur, District Dehradun, in which the present applicant is shown to be the named accused person, who is said to be allegedly involved in the commission of the offences under Section 376 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Apparently, as per the set of allegations which has been leveled against the present applicant, in the FIR, it is an admitted case of the complainant respondent No. 2 herein, that she had eloped from her principle place of residence i.e. Shivaji Ward, Gopeshwar, Chamoli, as back in May 2012. She contends that she has eloped from her principle place of residence under a false assurances, extended by the present applicant that he would be solemnizing marriage with her; but yet again the fact which cannot be ignored to be considered is that this assurance of marriage, which was extended in 2012, which was taken as to be the basis for eloping her from Gopeshwar, its that ever since 2012 till 30th November 2019, i.e. for almost 7 years, no grievances or any hue and cry was ever raised by the complainant respondent No. 2, as such of any nature whatsoever against the present applicant and it is admitted by her that since 2012 till 2019 i.e. almost for about more than seven years, she willingly continued to reside with the present applicant and had ventured into a consensual sexual relationship several times ever since 2012 till 2019. It was contended, that the wrath of misunderstanding between them started emanating between them when in 2020, the present applicant is said to have completely denied to solemnize the marriage with the complainant and had also threatened, that in case if she registers any complaints, he may be making public his videos and the MMS, which had been prepared by him.
3. The matter was investigated upon, and after the investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, being Chargesheet No. 1 dated 20th September 2020, whereby the offences under Section 376 and 506 of the IPC, are said to have been made out against the present applicant. It is relevant to extract the entire contents of para 16 of the chargesheet, which is extracted hereunder :-
Jheku th fnukad 29@08@2020 dks okfnuh fofurk jMoky }kjk Fkkuk gktk ij vfHk;qDr fofod ds fo#) 'kknh dk >kalk nsdj 'kkjfjd lEca/k cukus ds lEcU/k esa eqdnek v0l0 206@2020 /kkjk 376@506 Hkknfo cuke foods iathd`r djk;k x;k mijksDr foospuk eq> m0fu0 }kjk lEifnr dh xbZ nkSjkus foospuk eqdnek mijksDr esa c;ku ihfM+rk c;ku 164lh vkjihlh ihfM+r c;ku ,QvkbZvkj ys[k c;ku xokg] xokg c;ku esfMdy tkapdrkZ fy;s x;sA xokgksa us fouhrk ,oa food ds edku ekfydksa ds c;ku vafdr fd;s x;sA rFkk food ds nksLr us c;ku vafdr fd;s x;sA edku ekfyd ,oa foosd ds nksLrksa ds c;kuksa ls Li"V gksrs gS fd fofod ,oa fofurk nksauksa 2013 ls Live in relition f'ki esa Fks foods fofurk dks viuh nksLrh vius girl friend crkrk Fkk rFkk 'kqjohj ds edku nksauksa HkkbZ cgu cudj lkFk jgrs FksA blls Li"V gS fd foods }kjk fofurk dks 'kknh dk >kalk nsdj 'kkjfjd lEca/k cukrk jgkA vfHk;qDr foods pUnz iq= Lo0 Jh d`iky yky fuoklh lqHkk"kuxj xksis'oj peksyh ij /kkjk&378@506 Hkknfo0 dk tqeZ ck[kwch lkfcr gksrk gS vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vuqjks/k gS fd vfHk;qDr mijksDr lcwr Qjekdj mfpr n.M ls nf.Mr djus dh d`ik djsaA mijksDr eqdnekrs esa vkjksi esa vkjksi i= lknj Ásf"kr gS foospuk lekr dh tkrh gS m0fu0 Fkkuk jk;iqj nsgjknwu fn0 19-09-2020**
4. The Investigating Officer in the chargesheet thus submitted by him, it has been observed that on the pretext of establishment of friendly relationship, the complainant had resided with the present applicant in a live-in relationship, as his girlfriend, and both have voluntarily entered into a sexual relationship ever since 2012 till lodging of the FIR on 29.08.2020. On the basis of the aforesaid chargesheet, the cognizance had been taken against the applicant and the applican
The judgment established the importance of consent and the distinction between breach of trust and the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
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.
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 in sexual relationships must be genuinely understood; presenting false pretenses may constitute a misconception but requires clear malicious intent to amount to rape.
The presence of consent in a consensual relationship, even after the complainant knew the accused was married, negated the offense under Section 376 of the IPC.
There is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. If accused has not made promise with sole intention to seduce prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
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
