138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Jharkhand High Court Discharges Accused in Rape Case -Consensual Relationship

04 September 2024 11:27 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jharkhand, under the bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand, has discharged an accused in a case involving a consensual relationship. The accused had challenged the order rejecting his discharge application under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case revolved around the accused and the victim who were in a consensual relationship for several years. The victim was of major age at the time of the alleged incidents. The accused was accused of alluring her into establishing physical relations under the promise of marriage, after the victim had divorced her former husband.

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “The allegations indicate awareness of consequences, and the consent was not obtained under misconception. No sufficient ground exists to make out an offence under Section 376 IPC.” The court set aside the impugned order rejecting the discharge and discharged the accused.

This judgement highlights the importance of understanding the circumstances and context surrounding consensual relationships, and how the law should be applied in such cases.

The ruling takes into account previous cases as well, such as the judgement in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., where the Supreme Court differentiated between false promises of marriage and breach of promise made in good faith.

This judgement contributes to the ongoing discourse about consent, awareness, and accountability within relationships, and serves as a reminder of the delicate balance required in such cases. 

Date of Decision: 30/08/2023

xxx vs xxx

Latest Legal News