"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Consent Not Under Misconception of Fact": Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Alleged False Promise of Marriage Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision yesterday, overruled the High Court's stance and dismissed the FIR in a case alleging rape under a false promise of marriage, emphasizing the concept of "Consent Not Under Misconception of Fact."

The apex court's decision pivoted on the interpretation of consent in the context of rape allegations under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The key legal issue addressed was whether the consent provided by the complainant was under a misconception of fact, thereby influencing the applicability of these sections.

The appeal was against the High Court's refusal to quash an FIR lodged by a woman who accused the appellant of raping her under a false promise of marriage. Noteworthy is the complainant's marital status - she was already married and a mother - which played a critical role in the court's assessment.

Justice Rajesh Bindal, in delivering the judgment, scrutinized the maturity and comprehension of the complainant. He remarked, "She was a grown-up lady about ten years elder to the appellant... matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of her actions." The case was analyzed in light of the previous judgment in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), which dealt with similar circumstances.

The Court noted discrepancies in the complainant's statements, especially regarding her divorce and subsequent marriage claims with the appellant. These inconsistencies were crucial in determining the nature of the alleged consent.

Concluding its findings, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No.52 dated 11.12.2020, registered at the Mahila Thana, District Satna (M.P.), along with all subsequent proceedings, underscoring the nuances in the concept of consent in cases of sexual offenses.

Date of Decision: March 6, 2024

XXXX vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Another

Similar News