XXXX versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

XXXX versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

Because the prosecutrix was a grown, mature woman who continued consensual relations with the appellant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage, and because documentary evidence (decree dated 13.01.2021) belied her claim of earlier divorce and temple marriage, it could not be concluded that she consented under a misconception of a promise to marry; on these facts and by analogy to Naim Ahamed the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Parties
Appellant: XXXX; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 01.08.2022 Dismissing Petition Under Section 482 Cr.p.c. for Quashing FIR
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Quashing of FIR, Rape on False Pretext of Marriage, Consent for Sexual Relationship Under Misconception, Criminal Intimidation
Penal Code, 1860 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Quashing of FIR Rape on False Pretext of Marriage Consent for Sexual Relationship Under Misconception Criminal Intimidation

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 01.08.2022 Dismissing Petition Under Section 482 Cr.p.c. for Quashing FIR

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC
  2. 2 Whether the prosecutrix gave consent under a misconception of fact (false promise to marry) or whether the relations were consensual during subsistence of her earlier marriage

Ratio Decidendi

Because the prosecutrix was a grown, mature woman who continued consensual relations with the appellant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage, and because documentary evidence (decree dated 13.01.2021) belied her claim of earlier divorce and temple marriage, it could not be concluded that she consented under a misconception of a promise to marry; on these facts and by analogy to Naim Ahamed the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court dated 01.08.2022 is set aside
  • FIR No.52 dated 11.12.2020 registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Satna (M.P.) and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed