Delve into a detailed legal analysis where the court critically assesses allegations of a false promise of marriage in a consensual relationship, highlighting the crucial aspects of establishing offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Follow the court’s nuanced evaluation of the case to understand the complexities of such legal matters.
Facts
- Marriage of second respondent solemnized with someone else in June 2014 while her relationship with the appellant continued
- Appellant and second respondent got into a relationship during training at Teachers’ Training College in 2013
- Second respondent stated that appellant forced her to break away from her marriage and that relationship ended in March 2015
- Second respondent returned to parental home and started living with the appellant thereafter
- Grievance was that appellant got engaged to someone else in December 2017
- Charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under Section 173 of CrPC for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in 2018
- The appellant’s contention about the delay in filing the FIR was rejected.
- The court found no merit in the argument that the case was filed to settle personal vendetta.
- It was established that the allegations against the appellant were supported by prima facie evidence.
- The court emphasized the need for a proper trial to determine the veracity of the accusations.
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Analysis
- The court found that the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 376 IPC were not present based on the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet.
- The court did not delve into the merits of the allegations or interfere with the investigating agency’s authority to look into cognizable offences.
- The central issue was whether there was a false promise of marriage by the appellant leading to a sexual relationship with the second respondent.
- The allegations did not establish the crucial elements of the offence under Section 375 IPC, and the relationship between the parties was consensual.
- The High Court was criticized for not properly assessing the facts and for dismissing the application under Section 482 of CrPC erroneously.
- The appellant and second respondent were educated adults and had a consensual relationship before, during, and after her marriage to someone else.
- The court confirmed that the offence under Section 376 IPC was not substantiated even assuming the allegations in the charge-sheet were true.
- In the case of Bhajan Lal, the parameters for exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC were formulated.
- The key parameter for quashing is whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence.
- In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, it was emphasized that the ingredients of the offence must be established for offences under Section 376 of the IPC.
- Reiterating the parameters in Bhajan Lal, the court in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra stressed on the importance of proving the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 of the IPC.
- Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra reiterated the caution in exercising powers under Section 482 but affirmed the courts’ authority to quash if necessary.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Decision
- Case Crime No 11 of 2018 registered at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia
- Charge-sheet dated 23 April 2018 in the aforementioned case
- Order dated 24 May 2018 in Criminal Case No 785 of 2018
- Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (First), Ballia took cognizance of the charge-sheet
- The above mentioned case and order shall be quashed
- Any pending application has been disposed of
Case Title: SHAMBHU KHARWAR Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2022 INSC 827)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001231-001231 / 2022
