Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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