LexPRASHANT versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 825 : 2024 INSC 879 Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 4721 of 2024) 20 November 2024 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether FIR u/ss.376(2)(n) and s.506 IPC lodged against the appellant should be quashed; whether allegations in the FIR are correct; whether relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.376(2)(n) and s.506 – The appellant and complainant came in contact with each other in the year 2017 and after some time they got to know each other – Complainant alleged that in the year 2019 appellant had a forceful sexual relationship her – Further, it was alleged that appellant used to threaten the complainant to have forceful sexual relationship with her – Later, appellant refused to marry the complainant – FIR u/s.s.376(2)(n) and s.506 was registered – The High Court in concluding that there was no consent on the part of the complainant and therefore she was a victim of sexual assault – Correctness: Held: Taking the allegations in the FIR and the chargesheet as they stand, the crucial ingredients of the offence u/s.376(2)(n) IPC are absent – A review of the FIR and the complainant's statement u/s.164 CrPC discloses no indication that any promise of marriage was extended at the outset of their relationship in 2017 – Therefore, even if the prosecution's case is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the complainant engaged in a sexual relationship with the appellant solely on account of any assurance of marriage from the appellant – The relationship between the parties was cordial and also consensual in nature – A mere breakup of a * Author 826 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings – What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship – Further, both parties are now married to someone else and have moved on in their respective lives – Thus, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law – The High Court erred in concluding that there was no consent on the part of the complainant and she was a victim of sexual assault – Thus, the FIR registered u/ss.376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC and the charge-sheet filed are accordingly quashed. [Paras 19, 21] Case Law Cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 735 : (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335; XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024] 3 SCR 309 : (2024) 3 SCC 496; Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 11 SCR 423 : (2019) 9 SCC 608 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 376(2)(n) of Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of Penal Code, 1860; Forceful sexual relationship; Sexual assault; Sexual relationship; Assurance of marriage; Consensual relationship. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4721 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2023 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRLMC No. 6066 of 2019 Appearances for Parties Dr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Nikhil Tyagi, Atul Agarwal, Rakesh Kumar Khare, Ms. Kirti Sharma, Mrs. Amita Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 827 Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ajay Kumar Prajapati, Ayush Anand, Annirudh Sharma Ii, Veer Vikrant Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nagarathna, J. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 16.10.2023 in CRL.M.C 6066 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” for short) whereby the High Court refused to quash FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered with Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC” for short), the appellant is before this Court. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged FIR No. 272 of 2019 dated 29.09.2019 registered at Police Station South Rohini, Delhi under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC. As per the said FIR, the complainant alleged that she was living with her brother and working
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.