Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
RAHUL CHATURVEDI
PARVINDER SINGH YADAV – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
CRLA/5671/2021
SC/ST ACT - BAIL - CONSENTUAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP - NO FRAUD OR MISCONCEPTION - BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was arrested for allegedly raping and exploiting a 42-year-old woman under the pretext of marrying her. The woman later retracted her statement and claimed that the sexual relationship was consensual and that she no longer wished to pursue the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the woman's consent was not obtained through fraud or misconception and that the appellant's actions did not amount to rape. The court also noted that the woman was a well-educated adult who had voluntarily engaged in the sexual relationship.
Issues: Whether the appellant's actions amounted to rape under the SC/ST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the woman's retracted statement and her admission that the sexual relationship was consensual. The court also considered the fact that the woman was an adult who had voluntarily engaged in the relationship.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appellant's appeal and set aside the lower court's order denying him bail.
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5671 of 2021
Appellant :- Parvinder Singh Yadav
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Om Narayan Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Om Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant and learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T.
Act") has been filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2021
passed by learned Special Judge, Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Bail
Application No.3257 of 2021, in complaint case no. 63 of 2020, under
Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station-Rauza, District-Shahjahanpur. The appellant is in jail since
10.11.2021.
The genesis of the case starts from lodging of the FIR by Shashi Prabha as
case crime no. 103 of 2020 under Sections 376, 504, 506 and 323 IPC and
Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act on 24.02.2020 for the incident said to have
been taken place on 18.12.2019 against sole named accused persons
Parvinder Singh Yadav with the allegation that informant got married with
on Pradeep Kumar on 04.06.2014 and her husband died on accunt of rail
accident in the month of June 2015. The applicant, who is working as
Home Guardcame in contact with informant, and developed certain
amount of intimacy with the informant and promise her to marry and
thereafter she surrendered before the applicant and on her own volition
and accord they established a pre-marital sexual relationship with each
other. This was became a regular practice but later on 29.01.2020, the
applicant has declined to get him married with the informant. The police
after lodging of the FIR recorded statement of lady who is aged about 42
years and she in her statement under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. submits that she
is aged about 42 years having date of birth of 01.07.1976 and has
completed her education qualification as M.A.B.Ed. It is contended by the
counsel that on the false pretext of marrying with the informant, the
applicant has established physical relationship but now refused to marry
her.
I have perused the medical examination and 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the
victim/woman in which she has clearly stated that under the pressure of
her near and dear ones, she has lodged the FIR just to exert pressure upon
the applicant but now neither she is interested to marry him nor she does
not to want to pursue the case any more. It is further contended in 164
Cr.P.C. statement submits that she has clearly stated that the applicant has
not done any accesses to her and the averments of the FIR are wrong. It is
her own admission before learned Magistrate in her 164 Cr.P.C.. Relying
upon the which, the police has submitted final report on 19.03.2020 after
submission of the final report, the lady again protested after seven months
of the said final report on 20.10.2020 challenging the final report in the
matter, which was treated as complaint case and after recording the
statements under Sections 2002 and 202 Cr.P.C., the applicant was
summoned vide order dated 31.03.2021 to face the prosecution under
Section 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act. The applicant
approached this Court by filing Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
bearing number 13028 of 2021, which was disposed of with the direction
to surrender and apply for bail, accordingly, the bail application of the
applicant stands rejected.
Contention raised by the counsel that the applicant has been falsely
implicated by the informant with the ulterior motive and purpose. There is
drastic change in the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and her statement
under Section 200 Cr.P.C.. There is no parallel in between more over, she
herself is
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
