01Facts
The petitioner sought to set aside a Trial Court order dated 30.11.2023 which framed charges against him under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the IPC.
p. 1, 2The prosecutrix alleged that after meeting the petitioner on a matrimonial app in 2020, he established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage.
p. 2She further alleged that he subjected her to non-consensual unnatural sexual acts.
p. 2On 05.03.2023, the prosecutrix discovered the petitioner had married another woman; however, a subsequent sexual encounter occurred on 09.03.2023, which the prosecutrix claimed was induced by petitioner's promise to divorce his wife.
p. 2, 4The petitioner challenged the charges, arguing the relationship was long-term and consensual.
pp. 2-302Issues
i.1. Whether the Trial Court erred in framing charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC despite the long-term consensual nature of the relationship.
p. 2ii.2. Whether the sexual encounter on 09.03.2023, occurring after the prosecutrix knew of the petitioner’s marriage, vitiates the claim of "false promise of marriage" for the purpose of discharging the accused.
p. 3, 5iii.3. Whether the High Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the Trial Court's prima facie assessment.
p. 603Law Applied
The Court applied Section 401 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding revisional and inherent powers.
p. 1Substantively, it applied Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC regarding rape and unnatural offences.
p. 2Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal establishes that at the stage of framing charges, the court must only perform a prima facie assessment to determine if "grave suspicion" exists, rather than conducting a "mini-trial".
pp. 5-6Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Kumar Chandra defines the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction, limited to cases of manifest illegality or jurisdictional error.
p. 6Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161Section 164Section 401Section 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376Section 377
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the prosecutrix made categorical allegations in her Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements regarding non-consensual acts and a false promise of marriage.
pp. 4-5The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on precedents where relationships were deemed purely "sour," noting that in this case, the petitioner allegedly concealed his marriage to a third party from the prosecutrix.
p. 6The Court reasoned that the fact that the petitioner never divulged his marriage while maintaining the relationship created a "grave suspicion" of criminal intent.
pp. 5-6Regarding the 09.03.2023 encounter and the related audio recordings, the Court held these are matters of trial and cannot be dismissed at the discharge stage.
p. 5The Court concluded that since the evidence was capable of supporting the prosecution's view, a full trial was necessary.
p. 605Holding
The High Court dismissed the petition and sustained the charges framed under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC.
p. 7The Court held that there was no patent perversity or jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s order dated 30.11.2023.
pp. 6-7The petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for discharge, as the allegations and supporting materials (including hotel records and statements) were sufficient to proceed to trial.
p. 5, 7All pending applications were also dismissed.
p. 7Original Court PDF
AnuragvsState
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
