SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 182

DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, M.R.SHAH
Sonu @ Subhash Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Mr. Chanakya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Simant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, AOR Ms. Jaishree Raj Soni, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Vagisha Nandini, Adv. Mr. Vikram Singh Arya, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the effect of a consensual relationship on rape charges under Section 376 IPC when there is no false promise to marry at inception? What is the test for determining whether a promise to marry vitiates a woman's consent due to misconception of fact? What are the prerequisites for quashing a criminal charge under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged coerced or consensual sexual relationship?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the effect of a consensual relationship on rape charges under Section 376 IPC when there is no false promise to marry at inception?

What is the test for determining whether a promise to marry vitiates a woman's consent due to misconception of fact?

What are the prerequisites for quashing a criminal charge under Section 482 CrPC in a case involving alleged coerced or consensual sexual relationship?


JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by way of an SLP, arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 26 September 2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No 35811 of 2019. The above application was instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973(“CrPC”) for quashing the charge sheet dated 25 April 2018 in Case No 1066/IX/19 arising out of Case Crime No 121 of 2008 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860(“IPC”) at PS Kotwali, District Mathura. The High Court dismissed the application with a direction that the appellant herein may move the trial Court to seek discharge at the appropriate stage. However, the High Court directed that if the appellant moves an application for bail before the competent Court, the application should be disposed of in accordance with law. In the meantime, the appellant was protected against coercive action for a period of thirty days and was directed to appear before the Competent Court within the aforesaid period.

3. In order to consider the grievance of the appellant, it would be necessary to advert to the contents of the FIR. The FIR was


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top