The single judge bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another held that the offense under Section 376 of the IPC as of now in this modernized society is being misused as a weapon by the females to be mis utilized, as soon as there arise certain differences between herself and her male counterpart.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that before 2005, the complainant was in an intimate relationship with the applicant and even assured each other of getting married after getting the job. It was alleged by the complainant that the sexual relationship developed under the false pretext of marriage. However, even after the applicant married another woman, the physical relationship between the complainant and the applicant was still there.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the element of consent is present when the complainant voluntarily entered into a relationship with the application while being aware of the applicant's existing marriage. Furthermore, no such complaint was registered prior to the present FIR and the complainant didn’t get herself medically examined even though it was her responsibility to get medically examined.
It was noted that As of now in this modern society, the offense under Section 376 of the IPC is being misused as a weapon by females to be mis utilized, as soon as there are differences between herself and her male counterpart, rather it is being used as a weapon to put pressure on the other side for a number of undisclosed factors, and it cannot be ruled out that the provisions contained under Section 376 of the IPC are being rampantly misused by the females.
The Hon’ble court relied upon the judgments titled alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, Vijay Shukla Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, Deepak Gulati Vs. State of Haryana, and Shambhu Kharwar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another.
It was furthermore noted that the falsity of an assurance of marriage is to be tested at its initial stage of inception, and not at a subsequent stage.
Based on these considerations, the hon’ble court quashed the proceedings against the applicant.
The decision of the court
with the above direction, the hon’ble court allowed the application.
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand and Another
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Application No. 79 of 2021
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. T.C. Agarwal, Deputy A.G
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
