"Consensual": Court Cancels Rape Case Against 20-Year-Old Filed By Mother Of One
The Uttarakhand High Court has quashed a rape case slapped against a man below marriageable age by an older married woman whom he had been in a relationship with.
Justice Pankaj Purohit dismissed criminal proceedings against the underage man on the ground that it was a "consensual relationship".
The woman, who is also a mother, had charged him with rape under the promise of marriage and issuing threats of uploading her videos on the social media.
On the basis of her complaint, the man was charge-sheeted and served a summoning order by Kashipur Judicial Magistrate's court under Indian Penal Code Sections 376 (rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) in 2022.
The judge questioned how a mature 28-year-old married woman, who also had a seven-year-old son, could engage in physical relations with a 20-year-old man on the basis of a marriage promise. He also questioned the legal validity of such a promise, as the man was below marriageable age at the time.
"It was a consensual relationship that deteriorated rather than a case of false promise," the high court observed.
It also said that the accused was not of legally marriageable age while the complainant was already married and was well aware of the marriage and even had a child from it.
Further observing that the proposal of marriage from the accused was not probable due to the marital status of the complainant, the High Court quashed the complaint and the chargesheet against the man and dismissed the criminal proceedings against him.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Madhya Pradesh BJP MLA's nephew abuses toll plaza staff, demands free passage
A video of BJP MLA Manoj Chaudhary's nephew, Nikhil Chaudhary, creating a ruckus at a toll plaza near Bhonrasa on the Dewas–Bhopal highway has gone viral on social to police, the incident took place on August 6 at around 6 pm, when a car bearing registration number MP 09 CV 8414 arrived at lane number 10 of the toll plaza. The occupants allegedly argued with toll workers over allowing the vehicle to pass without paying toll. advertisementThe complaint lodged by the toll plaza shift in-charge states that Nikhil Chaudhary stepped out of the car with a stick in his hand, abused the toll staff, and said, 'My name is Nikhil Chaudhary, you don't know me. Let my vehicle pass for free or else I will kill all you toll people.' Two other individuals also got out of the car and joined the accused. The FIR further states that Chaudhary threw the stopper at the toll plaza during the Pradesh police have registered a case against Nikhil Chaudhary and his two accomplices under Sections 296, 351(3), and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code and have launched an investigation into the matter.- EndsWith inputs from Shaquil KhanTune InMust Watch
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse
MUMBAI: The Supreme Court has ruled recently that alimony received from a previous marriage cannot be considered while deciding matrimonial disputes in a subsequent marriage. SC: Alimony from first marriage irrelevant in dispute with second spouse The case concerned a couple, both previously divorced, who married on July 25, 2015. Their relationship broke down within one year and nine months, with disputes centring on a Mumbai apartment where they had lived. The husband claimed his wife had already received a 'fair settlement' from her earlier divorce. Alleging constant harassment, he said he left the flat to live with his parents and his disabled child in Faridabad, giving up a lucrative private bank job. The wife, however, accused him of intimidation and domestic violence, saying he abandoned her without means to survive. In 2018, she lodged an FIR under Section 498-A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code, prompting criminal proceedings. She had also filed a domestic violence complaint in May 2017 against him and his parents, while he petitioned for divorce in a Delhi court. During mediation, the couple reached a settlement on September 1, 2022: the husband would gift the flat and its parking spaces to her, while she would clear the outstanding loan and maintenance charges. But before the second motion for divorce, the wife withdrew from the agreement, demanding ₹12 crore in permanent alimony in addition to the property. The husband approached the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the 2018 criminal proceedings, arguing the wife had backed out of the settlement to pressure him into a better deal. His counsel, advocate Madhavi Diwan, told the court the flat was worth around ₹4 crore and the parking spaces could generate rental income. The wife's counsel countered that she had no job or income, while the husband remained lucratively employed, owned property worth crores, and ran two businesses. She sought ₹12 crore in alimony plus ownership of the apartment free of encumbrances. Justice K Vinod Chandran, dissolving the marriage, quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband, terming the allegations 'vague'. The court said the wife's earlier alimony was irrelevant, but took into account the husband's responsibility towards his autistic child, her educational qualifications, and the fact that she was gainfully employed. Finding the apartment transfer adequate compensation, the court rejected her ₹12 crore demand and directed the husband to clear all arrears with the housing society and execute a gift deed transferring the flat to her.
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
HC slaps fine of ₹25,000 for ‘false' petition; cites suppression of facts
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court, on August 1, slapped a ₹25,000 fine on a man for filing a false petition where he claimed he was illegally arrested and was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours. Based on his medical records, the court noted that he was never in police custody. HC slaps fine of ₹ 25,000 for 'false' petition; cites suppression of facts Ashish Virendra Pratap Singh, claimed that he has been falsely implicated by Devendra Jagdish Singh for offences under sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable securities and wills), 471 (using forged document as genuine) and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. He told the court that the FIR was registered on January 16, 2025 at the Mumbra Police Station, Thane, where Singh was named the co-accused. In Singh's petition he alleged that the police arrested him on January 17, and he was taken to various hospitals for medical examinations and routine check ups while he was still in police custody. His advocate Ashok Dubey told the court that the arrest was illegal, and Singh had not been produced before the magistrate within the mandatory 24-hour period following his arrest. Dubey added that this was a violation of his fundamental right, and demanded the court to offer him relief and order the police not to further arrest him. However, additional public prosecutor SV Gavand opposed the petition and asked for it to be dismissed with a heavy penalty. Gavand told the court that Singh had suppressed vital facts and not mentioned that he had appealed for anticipatory bail, a plea that was rejected on June 25. He added, 'This petition, filed on July 14, makes no disclosure of this crucial development.' Gavand told the court that after Singh's anticipatory bail was rejected, he had filed this petition to indirectly get a court order which would stop the police from arresting him. He added that Singh's medical records showed that he was advised to go to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital, but instead chose to seek treatment at other private hospitals. While Singh claimed that he had been in police custody during his hospital visits, Gavand told the court that he had been taken to the hospitals by his relatives. A division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Gautam Ankhad carefully examined his hospital records and noted that he was not an 'arrestee' at the time he was admitted. The medical record indicated that after Singh declined admission to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital on January 17, he admitted himself to Navkaar Hospital. Singh's discharge summary proved that his relatives had asked for him to be transferred to another hospital, and there was no mention of the police admitting him to the hospital. This indicated that he was not in police custody and was accompanied by his family. The court said that the medical records established, beyond any doubt, that Singh had not been in police custody at any point. Therefore, his claim of being arrested and not produced before the magistrate was entirely false, the court added. 'Since he was not under arrest, the question of his production before the magistrate does not arise', the court noted. The court also held that the deliberate suppression of facts was a serious error. 'The petitioner has, therefore, approached this court with unclean hands', the bench said. The court highlighted that Singh was attempting a 'second bite at the cherry' by seeking relief from the court after his anticipatory bail was rejected earlier. The court observed that Singh's petition was cleverly drafted by suppressing facts and essentially aimed to protect him from any coercive actions by the police. The court declined to grant any relief to Singh and allowed the investigation to proceed in accordance with law. The court dismissed Singh's petition calling it false and an abuse of the process of law. The bench imposed a ₹25,000 fine on Singh which he must deposit within 21 days.
