Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Consent Obtained by Misrepresentation is No Consent at All: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Rape Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant order, the Delhi High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Armaan Khan, who was implicated in a case under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The case revolved around allegations of sexual relationships predicated on the promise of marriage.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, presiding over the matter, observed, “There can be no dispute to the proposition of law that a consent which is obtained by misrepresentation is ‘no consent’ at all.” This crucial observation underscored the importance of consent in sexual relationships and its legal implications.

The prosecution's case alleged that the complainant was Induced into a physical relationship with Khan based on the assurance of marriage. However, Khan’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and highlighted the complainant’s awareness of potential difficulties in marriage proposals due to religious differences.

In his detailed order, Justice Mendiratta noted, “This is not a case wherein the petitioner had misrepresented about his background or concealed any other particulars.” The court further recognized the need to consider the surrounding circumstances and the duration of the association to ascertain whether the consent was voluntary or under a misconception of fact.

Granting bail, the Court imposed several conditions, including a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, restrictions on the petitioner’s movement outside the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, and directions to not influence witnesses or contact the complainant.

Date of Decision: 22nd January 2024

ARMAAN KHAN VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

 

Similar News