<p>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the High Court's order which had set aside his discharge in a rape case -- The Appellant was discharged by the Sessions Court under Section 227 CrPC for offences under Sections 376/506 IPC -- The High Court reversed this discharge order -- The Supreme Court held that the relationship was consensual and the Complainant's consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact -- The Court emphasized the distinction between a false promise to marry (which vitiates consent) and a breach of promise (which does not) -- Since both parties were in subsisting marriages when the relationship began, and the Complainant was aware of the circumstances, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out -- The Court restored the Sessions Court's discharge order</p>
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 19736- Section 227-- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 376 and 506-- Rape- Complaint u/s 376 and 506 of IPC filed by respondent no.2-- Charge sheet-- Appellant/accused filed an application for discharge before trial court-- Session court passed an ordere of discharge passed in favour of appellant-- Aggrieved-- Challenged to discharge order by respondent no.2/complainant before high court in revision-- High court was pleased to allow the revision of complainant and set aside the order of discharge -- Aggrieved-- Challenged by appellant accused before Supreme court-- Consensual relationship between both side for long time-- Case of Naim Ahmed (Supra) referred-- Mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case-- No material as to establish the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation-- Prolonged consensus physical relationship- No element of force or deceit in relationship-- Sufficient material to exercise the powers u/s 227 of code-- Justification in passing an order of discahrge-- Judgment of high court set aside-- Appeal Allowed
Para-- 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal -- Set aside the Impugned Order dt. 03.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi -- Restored the Order dt. 08.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge discharging the Appellant
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (4) 20
Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4007 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2025-04-07
Case Title: Whether there was sufficient material on record for the Sessions Court to have discharged the Appellant for offences under Section 376 and 506 IPC arising out of FIR no. 281/2021
Before Judge: B. V. NAGARATHNA J. , SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 457
Advocate(s): Not specified in provided text
Appellant: JASPAL SINGH KAURAL
Respondent: THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against High Court order setting aside discharge in rape case
Remedy Sought: Appellant sought quashing of High Court order and restoration of Sessions Court discharge order
Filing Reason: Appellant aggrieved by High Court's interference with discharge order under Section 227 CrPC
Previous Decisions: Sessions Court discharged Appellant under Section 227 CrPC -- High Court set aside discharge order and directed framing of charges
Issues: Whether consent for sexual relationship was vitiated by misconception of fact due to promise of marriage Whether sufficient material existed for discharge under Section 227 CrPC
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant argued relationship was consensual and Complainant was aware of circumstances -- No coercion, undue influence or false promise existed Respondent argued consent was based on promise of marriage which was dishonest inducement -- Appellant promised marriage to Complainant, her family and ex-husband
Ratio Decidendi: Consent for sexual relationship is not vitiated by misconception of fact when parties are aware of circumstances and relationship is consensual -- Distinction must be made between false promise (which vitiates consent) and breach of promise (which does not) -- For Section 376 IPC, prosecution must establish that accused never intended to marry from beginning -- When both parties were in subsisting marriages and Complainant entered relationship with open eyes, no offence under Section 376 IPC is made out
Judgment Excerpts: The bone of contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under the misconception of fact, as the accused had given a false promise to marry her There is a difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused
Procedural History: FIR registered on 05.06.2021 under Sections 376/506 IPC -- Charge-sheet filed on 15.05.2022 -- Appellant filed discharge application under Section 227 CrPC -- Sessions Court discharged Appellant on 08.06.2023 -- High Court set aside discharge order on 03.01.2024 -- Supreme Court heard appeal and restored discharge order
