Man goes back on promise to marry woman with ‘aggressive sexual trait'
New Delhi: Supreme Court has quashed rape charges against a man who had a consensual physical relationship with a 30-year-old woman but backed out of his marriage promise after observing her "aggressive sexual behaviour, obsessive nature, and manipulative and vindictive tendencies".
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Allowing the man's plea to quash the FIRs lodged against him by Cyberabad police in 2022 on the woman's complaints accusing him of establishing a physical relationship with the promise of marriage, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said, "The facts on record clearly establish the vindictive and manipulative tendencies of the complainant and these aspects have a great bearing on the controversy."
Writing the judgment, Justice Mehta said allowing the man's prosecution would be nothing but gross abuse of the process of law and the complaints were "nothing but a bundle of lies full of fabricated and malicious unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainant (woman)".
The court was informed about a similar complaint the woman had lodged against an assistant professor at Osmania University in 2021, where she was studying. What rescued the man in the present case was the chats of the woman, who went by the name 'Muffin' on social media.
In the chats, she admitted to being manipulative and her desire to "get a green card holder". "At one point of time, she also stated that it would not be difficult for her to trap the next one.
In the very same breath, she mentions that she would not waste time with the accused appellant and needs to 'invest on the next victim'. She also mentions that she would irritate her victims to the extent that they dump her, and she could happily start with the next one.
She also stated that she was using the accused appellant," the bench recorded in its judgment.
"These chats depict the stark reality about the behavioural pattern of the de-facto complainant who appears to be having manipulative and vindictive tendencies.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Thus, in our opinion, the accused appellant was absolutely justified in panicking and backing out from the proposed marriage upon coming to know of the aggressive sexual behaviour and the obsessive nature of the de-facto complainant," Justices Nath and Mehta said.
Quashing the FIRs, the SC said, "Hence, even assuming that the accused appellant retracted from his promise to marry the complainant, it cannot be said that he indulged in sexual intercourse with the de-facto complainant under a false promise of marriage or that the offence was committed by him with the de-facto complainant on the ground that she belonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes community."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Justice Oka highlights the interconnection between environmental justice and social justice at Climate Change Conference
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Former Supreme Court judge Abhay S Oka on Thursday said that environmental justice , as developed by India's constitutional courts, is deeply intertwined with the idea of social justice 'It is my privilege to address this gathering on a very important subject, the environment, which is dear to me. As a judge of the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Supreme Court, I was lucky enough to deal with many environmental matters,' Justice Oka said at the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) Climate Change Conference and Awards emphasized that environmental issues go beyond preserving nature and have direct consequences on the lives and health of human beings.'When we talk about environmental justice, social justice inevitably comes into the picture. Protection of the environment is not only necessary for preserving natural resources available on planet Earth, but more importantly, it is essential for human beings to lead a healthy, constructive, and meaningful life. If we are not able to preserve our environment and protect it from degradation, we are doing an injustice to society at large,' he gave Delhi's recurring winter air pollution crisis as an example of inequality in environmental access.'That is where social justice comes into the picture. One classic example is Delhi. Every year, from December to February, we are hit by massive air pollution. Most of the people present here today can afford air purifiers at home, but the majority of Delhi's population living in shanties or working on the streets can't afford air purifiers.'Justice Oka stressed that constitutional guarantees of social justice must include environmental protection, citing how pollution affects livelihoods, particularly among vulnerable communities like fishermen.'Take, for example, pollution of our rivers or our seas affects the livelihood of the fishing community. Thus, every environmental issue, every degradation, every destruction of the environment has a direct nexus with social justice guaranteed by the Constitution.'He highlighted that environmental degradation also affects economic justice and the national economy, disproportionately impacting the poor. He reaffirmed the significance of legal doctrines such as sustainable development and the polluter pays principle , developed by courts to safeguard environmental also questioned the country's definition of development: whether it should be limited to infrastructure like highways and flyovers, or be reoriented toward providing essentials to the poor. He warned that the current path would render sustainable development from over four decades of legal experience, he observed that very few citizens engage with environmental concerns seriously, and those who do are often labeled as anti-development.'I have been part of several environmental decisions in the Bombay High Court, Karnataka High Court, and the Supreme Court. What I find from my long experience of 20 years as a lawyer and nearly 22 years as a judge of three constitutional courts is that very few citizens show enthusiasm and courage to take up environmental issues. It is not easy to address environmental concerns, as those who raise these issues rarely get active societal support.'He added that environmental defenders are often misunderstood and vilified for standing against damaging practices.'Those advocating environmental causes rarely received societal support, and in such a case, how could they expect to receive support from the government?'Referring to the landmark MC Mehta case, Justice Oka said the Supreme Court's directions laid the foundation for environmental jurisprudence, but questioned if society has truly honored those who led the charge.'Have we adequately honoured or remembered him (Mehta, who filed the PIL), especially today, as we celebrate World Environment Day?'He also reflected on his past work addressing noise pollution caused by illegal loudspeaker use during festivals.'Noise pollution caused by religious festivals affects human health seriously. Everyone has a constitutional right not to be compelled to hear what they don't wish to, yet illegal use of loudspeakers continues, forcing people to endure unwanted noise. Noise pollution isn't just irritating, it impacts hearing capacity and brain functioning.'Justice Oka concluded with a call for humility and awareness, emphasizing that humanity is a part of nature—not its owner.'We degrade and destroy the environment under the wrong notion that the earth belongs to us, but in fact, we belong to the earth. Some of us are under the wrong notion that the environment belongs to us. In fact, we belong to the environment.'Quoting Article 21 of the Constitution, he reminded that the right to dignity includes the right to live in a clean, pollution-free environment.'If you are living in an atmosphere polluted by air and other forms of pollution, you cannot live with dignity. Protecting the environment, including the manmade and natural environments, is of great concern for human existence.'[Inputs from PTI]
United News of India
22 minutes ago
- United News of India
SILF Climate Change Conference 2025 honours Justice Abhay S. Oka with Sustainability Award
New Delhi, June 5 (UNI) In a stirring convergence of law and environmental consciousness, the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) hosted the SILF Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 in New Delhi on World Environment Day, recognising the Indian judiciary's unwavering role in protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development. The event was graced by Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge of the Supreme Court of India, as Chief Guest, and Justice Jasmeet Singh, Judge of the Delhi High Court, as Guest of Honour. The highlight of the ceremony was the presentation of the SILF Sustainability Award 2025 to Justice Abhay S. Oka, former Supreme Court Judge, for his extraordinary contributions to environmental jurisprudence in India. Delivering a powerful keynote, Justice Oka stated, 'Environmental justice cannot be separated from social and economic justice. Pollution and environmental degradation hurt the most vulnerable the hardest, affecting their dignity and the basic rights under Article 21 of our Constitution.' He lamented the lack of recognition for environmental activists and emphasised the need to translate judicial principles into action. 'On World Environment Day, we must honour the unsung heroes of environmental protection and turn our ideals into tangible action,' he added. Justice Jasmeet Singh stressed the urgency of the climate crisis and the judiciary's pivotal role: 'The crisis we face today is a consequence of unsustainable development. But landmark judgments like M.C. Mehta prove that environmental conservation and progress must coexist.' He urged society to embrace sustainability as a path to innovation and collective prosperity, not merely a challenge. 'It is through collective effort that climate change can become a catalyst for resilient growth,' he said. "We Belong to Mother Earth": Justice Sanjay Karol Justice Sanjay Karol made an emotional plea for grassroots environmental action: 'We must stop viewing climate change as a problem to be solved later. It is a climate emergency now. The courts have done their part, now every citizen must rise to the occasion.' He dismissed the notion that judicial activism hinders economic growth, asserting that both can progress in harmony to achieve constitutional goals of sustainability. Dr. Lalit Bhasin, President of SILF and Chairman of the CII National Committee on Legal Services, applauded the judiciary's role. He said, 'The judgments of our courts have sown seeds of environmental accountability in India's governance landscape. These precedents are now the guiding light for lawmakers, regulators, and businesses alike.' The Awards Ceremony honoured key individuals and organisations for championing sustainability, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Retired Supreme Court Judge, Dr. Bina Modi, Chairperson, Modi Enterprises, Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate, Prof. (Dr.) S. Shanthakumar, VC, Gujarat National Law University, Rajesh Jha, Regional Legal Director, South Asia, Reckitt India, Sharad Aggarwal, CEO, Godfrey Phillips India, Additionally, Plaques of Honour were presented to Justice Karol and Justice Jasmeet Singh for their sustained commitment to environmental justice. Engaging Panel Discussions on Judicial Responsibility, Two thematic panels 'Courts as Saviours of Clean Air, Trees, Rivers, Forests, and Climate in India' and 'Role of Judiciary in Balancing Economic Development and Sustainability'/featured rich dialogues by experts on how India's legal framework must evolve to address the country's ecological challenges. The SILF Climate Change Conference and Awards 2025 reaffirmed that law and climate responsibility are inextricably linked and that India's legal fraternity must remain at the forefront of environmental stewardship. UNI SNG RN
Mint
27 minutes ago
- Mint
US Supreme Court sides with straight woman in discrimination case — DEI backlash incoming?
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. The justices' decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups. 'By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' — without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,' Jackson wrote. The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years. Though he joined Jackson's opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a separate opinion that some of the country's 'largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups.' Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, cited a brief filed by America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, to assert that "American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans." Two years ago, the court's conservative majority outlawed consideration of race in university admissions. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration's anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court. Jackson's opinion makes no mention of DEI. Instead, she focused on Ames' contention that she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing 'background circumstances' that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group. The appeals court noted that Ames didn't provide any such circumstances. But Jackson wrote that 'this additional 'background circumstances' requirement is not consistent with Title VII's text or our case law construing the statute.'
