MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News