IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
Ajay Kumar Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background and context of the case. (Para 2) |
| 2. parties' arguments regarding the framing of charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. factors affecting decision on charges. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. legal principles regarding consent and misconception. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusions drawn from evidence and applicability of law. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. court's final decision and order. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
Achal Kumar Paliwal, J.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties heard finally at motion stage.
2. Present criminal revision petition has been filed under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C. assailing order dated 05.10.2021 whereby charge under Section 376 (2)(n) and 376 of IPC has been framed against present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, alleged incident is said to have occurred from 08.03.2020 to 25.02.2021 and FIR has been lodged on 5.04.2021. It is also urged that prosecutrix is a guest teacher aged 24 years. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that applicant was ready to marry prosecutrix but when family members of prosecutrix went to meet maternal uncle and aunt of applicant for discussing th
Dr.Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashra and Other
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Mahrashtra and Another
Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand
M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
State of A.P. V. Obulapuram Mining Co. (P) Ltd.
State of Orissa V. Debendra Nath Padhi
Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
State of J &K V. Sudarshan Chakkar
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Samal
Ram Prakash Chadha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Dr.Dhruvarma Murlidhar Sonar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others
Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Consent under Section 375 IPC can be vitiated by a false promise of marriage only if it is proven that such promise was made without any intention to fulfill it at the time of the promise.
Consent obtained under a false promise to marry does not constitute valid consent for sexual acts; the court must evaluate the intention behind the promise and the circumstances surrounding the conse....
Consent in sexual relationships requires active understanding and cannot be deemed vitiated solely by false promises of marriage unless proven that such promises were made in bad faith.
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.
Consent obtained through a false promise of marriage negates its validity, establishing grounds for rape under Sections 375 and 376(2)(n) 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.