SONU @ SUBHASH KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

SONU @ SUBHASH KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

On the basis of the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC the relationship was consensual and there is no allegation that the promise to marry was false at its inception; the subsequent refusal to marry does not establish a false promise as required by the tests in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, therefore no offence under Section 376 IPC was established on the face of the record and the charge-sheet was liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Parties
Appellant: Sonu @ Subhash Kumar; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Geeta D/o Ram Babu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition / Criminal Appeal (quashing of Charge Sheet) / Appeal Against High Court Order Dismissing Petition Under Section 482 Cr Pc; Supreme Court Decision Quashing Charge Sheet
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; charge-sheet quashed.
Legal Topics
Quashing of Charge Sheet Under Section 482 Cr PC, Consent and Misconception of Fact, Promise to Marry and Its Effect on Consent, Section 375 IPC (rape), Section 376 IPC
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Sexual Offences Quashing of Charge Sheet Under Section 482 Cr PC Consent and Misconception of Fact Promise to Marry and Its Effect on Consent Section 375 IPC (rape) Section 376 IPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sonu @ Subhash Kumar

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Geeta D/o Ram Babu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition / Criminal Appeal (quashing of Charge Sheet) / Appeal Against High Court Order Dismissing Petition Under Section 482 Cr Pc; Supreme Court Decision Quashing Charge Sheet

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether consensual sexual relations induced by a promise to marry vitiate consent under Section 375 IPC
  2. 2 Whether the charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of the FIR and Section 164 statement
  3. 3 Whether the promise to marry was a false promise at the inception and intended to deceive

Ratio Decidendi

On the basis of the FIR and the statement under Section 164 CrPC the relationship was consensual and there is no allegation that the promise to marry was false at its inception; the subsequent refusal to marry does not establish a false promise as required by the tests in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, therefore no offence under Section 376 IPC was established on the face of the record and the charge-sheet was liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; charge-sheet quashed.

Orders

  • Leave granted.
  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 26 September 2019 set aside.