SONU @ SUBHASH KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 01-03-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 137
SONU @ SUBHASH KUMAR
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2021)
MARCH 01, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Second respondent
lodged FIR against the appellant alleging that appellant developed
friendship with her and assured that he would marry her – Appellant
and second respondent developed physical relationship for about
one and a half years and subsequently appellant expressed
disinclination to marry her – Charge sheet filed against appellant
under s.376 IPC – s.482 application filed by appellant for quashing
the charge-sheet – High Court dismissed the application with
direction that appellant may move trial court to seek discharge at
appropriate stage – Hence instant appeal – Held: To establish
whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact”
arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be
established – Promise of marriage must have been a false promise,
given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the
time it was given – The false promise itself must be of immediate
relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage
in the sexual act – In the instant case, the FIR and statement under
s.164 Cr.P.C showed that the relationship between the appellant
and second respondent was consensual in nature – There was no
allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second
respondent was false at the inception – On the contrary, the contents
of the FIR showed that there was a subsequent refusal on the part
of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave rise to
the registration of the FIR – On these facts, the High Court was in
error in declining to entertain the petition under s.482 on the basis
that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a
determination as to whether an offence was established – Penal
Code, 1860 – ss.375, 376.
137
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The FIR specifically records that the second
respondent had developed a friendship with the appellant and
that he had assured that he would marry her. The FIR then
records that the appellant and the second respondent developed
a physical relationship which spread over a period of one and a
half years, during the course of which the second respondent
conversed with the parents and sister of the appellant. It has
been alleged in the FIR that the parents of the appellant were
agreeable to the couple getting married. As a matter of fact, the
appellant returned to his home town at Jhansi on 5 January 2018
when he had made a phone call to her stating that she should
come and visit him so that they can get married. On travelling to
Jhansi at the behest of the appellant, the second respondent was
informed by the father of the appellant that the appellant did not
wish to marry her. The contents of the statement under Section
164 of Cr.PC also indicate that the second respondent had
“voluntarily developed relationship of husband-wife with him”.
The second respondent has then stated that “now, he and his
family members are refusing to marry with me”. The second
respondent has further stated that “my sole grievance is that
Sonu is refusing to marry with me”. [Para 7][142-B-E]
2. The contents of the FIR as well as the statement under
Section 164 of CrPC leave no manner of doubt that, on the basis
of the allegations as they stand, three important features emerge:
The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent
was of a consensual nature; The parties were in the relationship
for about a period of one and a half years; and Subsequently, the
appellant had expressed a disinclination to marry the second
respondent which led to the registration of the FIR. [Para 8][142-
F-G]
3. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to
marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception.
On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR
that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant
to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
of the FIR. On these facts, the High Court was in error in declining
to entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC on the basis
that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a
determination as to whether an offence was established.
[Para 11][143-E-G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.