1. Anurag Soni vs. The State of Chattisgarh 2019 (13) SCC 1
Summary of Paragraph 11, 19 (10.5) and 16:
Paragraph 19(10.5): Refers to Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar, highlighting the distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must examine whether the complainant had mala fide motives or made a false promise to satisfy lust. A mere breach of promise does not amount to rape.
Paragraph 10.6 sub-para-16: Refers to Sujit Ranjan v. State, holding that consent given by the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse on a promise of future marriage cannot be considered as given under “misconception of fact.” The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no intention to marry from the inception.
Paragraph 11: Refers to Tilak Raj, where the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the accused for two years. The Court found that the story of sexual intercourse on false pretenses of marriage was concocted and not believable. The accused was acquitted under Section 376 of the IPC.
2. Prashant vs. The State of NCT Delhi 2024 INSC 879:
Summary of Paragraph 11,18,19and 20
Paragraph 11: Refers to State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, outlining parameters for exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC. Quashing may be appropriate where allegations do not constitute any offence or are made with mala fide intentions.
Paragraph 18: Highlights that the complainant and appellant were in a consensual relationship. The appellant’s marriage in 2019 likely led the complainant to file the FIR. A mere breakup of a consensual relationship cannot result in criminal proceedings.
Paragraph 19: Emphasizes that the crucial ingredients of the offence under Section 376 (2)(n) IPC are absent. The relationship was consensual, and a breakup does not amount to criminality.
Paragraph 20: There is no case of criminal intimidation as the relationship was consensual. The complainant filed the complaint after the appellant’s marriage in 2019.
3. Sonu@Subhash Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1405
Summary of Paragraph 9, 10 and 11.
Paragraph 9: In the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, the court outlined the legal principles for situations where a promise to marry is used to deceive a woman into engaging in sexual relations. If the promise to marry is false and made with the intention to deceive, it creates a “misconception of fact” that invalidates the woman’s consent. However, a mere breach of promise does not constitute a false promise. To establish a false promise, it must be shown that the person making the promise had no intention of keeping it at the time it was made.
Paragraph 10: The court summarized the legal position from previous cases, stating that a woman’s consent under Section 375 must involve active and reasoned deliberation. To determine if consent was invalidated by a “misconception of fact” due to a promise to marry, two conditions must be met: the promise of marriage must have been false and made in bad faith with no intention of being kept, and this false promise must have directly influenced the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.
Paragraph 11: Considering the legal tests established in the aforementioned decision, the court concluded that even if all allegations in the FIR are accepted as true for the purpose of considering an application to quash under Section 482 of the CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation that the promise to marry was false from the beginning. Instead, the FIR indicates a subsequent refusal to marry, which led to its registration. Based on these facts, the High Court erred in not entertaining the petition under Section 482, as the determination of an offence should not solely depend on trial evidence.
Anurag Soni vs. The State of Chattisgarh 2019 (13) SCC 1
Prashant vs. The State of NCT Delhi 2024 INSC 879
Sonu@Subhash Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1405
