LexMANISH YADAV versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1497 : 2025 INSC 151 Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2025) 22 January 2025 [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant herein has sought to quash proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506, Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r),3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376, 323, 504 and 506 – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) – Allegation that appellant befriended the complainant and established physical relations with her – Later, appellant began assaulting complainant and used derogatory caste-based slurs, imputing that he will not marry her – FIR was registered – Charge-sheet was filed – Appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings: Held: In the instant case, the complainant had agreed to indulge in intimate relations with the appellant on the accord of her own desires and not on the basis of any false promise of marriage made by the appellant – Therefore, while the present case may involve a breach of promise, it does not constitute a case of an inherently false promise to marry – Based on the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the appellant obtained the complainant’s consent to engage in a physical relationship under the pretext of a false promise of marriage – Admittedly, the appellant himself had asked the complainant to elope with him and get married, but it was the complainant who insisted on waiting till he secured a job – Therefore, while the prosecution story primarily rests on the fact that the appellant had lured the complainant to develop * Author 1498 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports physical relations with him on the promise to marry her in future, this very statement of the complainant suggests the contrary – The complainant’s act of declining the appellant’s proposal of marriage shows that it was not the appellant who failed to stand firm upon his promise if any such promise was made by the appellant at any point in time – Thus, the theory put forth by the prosecution in the charge-sheet that the appellant induced the complainant to indulge in physical relations under a false promise of marriage is neither corroborated nor established by the best evidence available on record, which is in the form of the statement of the complainant recorded u/s.164 CrPC – Moreover, in her statement, the complainant did not stated that she was maligned or abused by the appellant for belonging to a particular caste – Therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act, against the appellant are ex-facie not made out – The instant case appears to be one where a consensual physical relationship between two adults has turned sour due to certain intervening events – Hence, allowing the prosecution of the appellant for the offences would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law and nothing else – Thus, proceedings sought to be taken against the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.376, 323, 504 and 506, IPC and ss.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act are quashed. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23] Case Law Cited Deelip Singh v. State of Bihar [2004] Supp. 5 SCR 909 : (2005) 1 SCC 88 – relied on. Uday v. State of Karnataka [2003] 2 SCR 231 : (2003) 4 SCC 46; Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [2013] 6 SCR 544 : (2013) 7 SCC 675 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Scheduled Castes and the Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Intimate relations; False promise of marriage; Breach of promise; Physical relationship; Proposal of marriage; Rape; Relationship turned sour. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1499 Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 333 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRA No. 227 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Nikhil Sharma, Abhinav Srivastav, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. Shaurya Sahay, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellant through this appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.