Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges Due to Lack of Consent Under Misconception. The allegations did not establish the essential ingredients of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, given the consensual nature of the relationship.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court which dismissed an application for quashing a criminal case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant, Shambhu Kharwar, was accused of raping the second respondent, who had been in a consensual relationship with him for several years. The second respondent alleged that Kharwar had promised to marry her but instead married someone else, leading her to file a complaint. The court examined the nature of the relationship, noting that it was consensual and persisted even after the second respondent's marriage and subsequent divorce. The court found that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal criteria for establishing rape under Section 375 IPC, particularly regarding the concept of consent and misconception of fact. The High Court's ruling was deemed erroneous as it failed to recognize the consensual nature of the relationship and the absence of the essential elements of the alleged offence. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Ingredients of Offence - Section 376 IPC, Section 482 CrPC - The court held that the allegations did not establish the essential ingredients of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC, given the consensual nature of the relationship between the parties. The High Court's dismissal of the application was based on a misconceived understanding of the facts, leading to the quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet. Held that the relationship was consensual and did not amount to an offence (Paras 12-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet constituted an offence under Section 376 IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR and charge-sheet, and set aside the High Court's order dated 5 October 2018.

Law Points

  • Quashing of FIR
  • Consent
  • Misconception of Fact
  • Section 376 IPC
  • Section 482 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (08) 215

Criminal Appeal No 1231 of 2022

2022-08-12

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna

Shambhu Kharwar

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against dismissal of application for quashing FIR.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet.

Filing Reason

Allegations of rape based on a broken promise of marriage.

Previous Decisions

High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC.

Issues

Whether the allegations constituted an offence under Section 376 IPC Whether the relationship was consensual

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the relationship was consensual and did not amount to rape. Respondent contended that the promise of marriage was false and led to sexual relations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the allegations did not establish the essential ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship and the absence of a false promise to marry.

Judgment Excerpts

The relationship between the parties was purely of a consensual nature. The High Court has, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 482 of CrPC on a completely misconceived basis.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and charge-sheet, which was dismissed by the High Court on 5 October 2018, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482, Section 161, Section 173
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 375, Section 376, Section 90
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Holds Auction Purchaser Not Liable to Pay Unearned Increase to DDA in Compulsory Acquisition Case. Conversion Charges Refunded as Property Conveyed Was Freehold, Not Leasehold.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Regarding Tax Liability on Lottery Prize Delivery Date. Interest Charged on Receipt Basis, Not Declaration Date, Under Income Tax Act, 1961.