LexLALU YADAV versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 639 : 2024 INSC 782 Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 4222 of 2024) 16 October 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent power under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the FIR against the appellant under Section 376, Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 313 – Respondent No.4-complainant alleged rape by the appellant on false promise of marriage – Whether the complainant gave her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, as alleged: Held: No – As per the FIR, the offence was allegedly committed from 2013 to 2018 however, the FIR was registered only in 2018 – There was a delay of more than 5 years in filing the FIR – Complainant and the appellant were living for long as husband and wife – There is a huge irregularity between the statements “established physical relationship with me without my consent” and “started living with me as the husband” – Present is a case of long consensual physical relationship during which the complainant addressed the appellant as her husband – Allegations in the FIR do not constitute a prima facie case of false promise to marry from the inception with a view to establish sexual relationship – On facts, subsequent refusal to marry the complainant not sufficient to prima facie establish that the complainant gave consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under misconception of fact, so as to accuse the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of s.375, IPC – Further, since now the allegation of offence u/s.313, IPC is omitted by the State, there is no prima facie case for proceeding further against the appellant on the allegation of commission of offence punishable u/s.376, IPC – High Court ought * Author 640 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports to have exercised its inherent power u/s.482, CrPC – Impugned order set aside – FIR and all further proceedings based thereon, quashed. [Paras 9, 14-16] Judicial Review – Criminal cases – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Appellant sought quashing of FIR u/Article 226 – Nomenclature of petition not relevant, petition may be treated as one u/s.482, CrPC: Held: High Court can exercise its power either u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India or u/s.482, CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of the court or to secure the ends of justice – Nomenclature under which a petition is filed is irrelevant – If the court finds that the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court u/ Article 226, it may treat the petition u/s.482, CrPC. [Para 1] Case Law Cited Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : (1998) 5 SCC 749; Satya Pal v. State of U.P [1996] Supp. 9 SCR 203 : 2000 CrLJ 569 – referred to. Shivashankar alias Shiva v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2019) 18 SCC 204; “XXXX” v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [2024] 3 SCR 309 : (2024) 3 SCC 496; Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023] 1 SCR 1061 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [1990] Supp 3 SCR 259 : AIR 1992 SC 604 – relied on. Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P., 2006 (56) ACC 433 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Inherent power; Quashing; Rape on false promise of marriage; Parties living for long as husband and wife; Consent for sexual relationship under misconception of fact; Delay in registering the FIR; Long consensual physical relationship; Refusal to marry; Judicial Review in criminal matters; Nomenclature of petition. [2024] 10 S.C.R. 641 Lalu Yadav v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4222 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMWP No. 16825 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Devvrat, Ms. Swati Setia, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Subas Ray, Dr. Pabitra Pal Choudhary, Nitin Jain, Advs. for the Appellant. Ajay Kumar Misra, A.G./Sr. Adv., Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Shantanu Kumar, Anurag Singh, Adv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.