{"id":1383,"date":"2024-01-25T18:31:20","date_gmt":"2024-01-25T13:01:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1383"},"modified":"2024-01-25T18:32:59","modified_gmt":"2024-01-25T13:02:59","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-no-case-of-rape-on-false-promise-to-marry-is-made-out-when-the-relationship-ultimately-led-to-the-solemnization-of-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-no-case-of-rape-on-false-promise-to-marry-is-made-out-when-the-relationship-ultimately-led-to-the-solemnization-of-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that no case of rape on false promise to marry is made out when the relationship ultimately led to the solemnization of marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ajeet Singh\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>(Appellant)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. <\/strong>( Respondents)<\/h1>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2024<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> At the instance of the third respondent, a First Information Report (the FIR), being Case Crime no.106 of 2016, was registered at the Police Station Naka, District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, \u2018IPC\u2019) wherein the appellant was shown as an accused. A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for quashing the FIR. By the impugned judgment dated 7th December 2016, the High Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether a case under section 376 is made out against the appellant?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, invited our attention to Annexure P-2, which is a notice dated 1st May 2015 issued by an advocate on behalf of the victim. The learned counsel submitted that in the notice, the victim admitted that a marriage was solemnized between her and the appellant. He pointed out that on 6th May 2015, a petition under Section 9 of the HMA was filed by the appellant against the victim for restitution of conjugal rights. He submitted that within a few days thereafter, on 27th May 2015, the third respondent lodged the FIR. He urged that the prosecution of the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed it. He pointed out that even the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit stating that as the appellant had married the victim, the allegation of rape may not be substantiated.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent\u2013State of Uttar Pradesh, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC were made out.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cthe relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant, the factum of marriage was admitted. Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage. Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant. Therefore, clause (5) of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal will apply. Hence, a case was made out for quashing the FIR.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ajeet Singh\u00a0 \u00a0(Appellant)\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ( Respondents) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2024 (2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J.)   Facts: At the instance of the third respondent, a First Information Report (the FIR), being Case Crime no.106 of 2016, was registered […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1386,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1383","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1383","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1383"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1383\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1385,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1383\/revisions\/1385"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1386"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1383"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1383"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1383"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}