0% found this document useful (0 votes)
771 views

Sd/-Rajkumar Meena Intern at Ubadvocate

The document discusses the legal definition of rape under Indian law and two relevant Supreme Court cases. It summarizes guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal that allow quashing a rape FIR if the sexual relationship was truly consensual. It also summarizes Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra where the court quashed a FIR for a consensual extramarital relationship. The legal opinion is that Ram Bahadur's case fits these precedents so he should approach the high court to quash the FIR against him since his relationship with Usha appeared genuinely consensual.

Uploaded by

Rajkumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
771 views

Sd/-Rajkumar Meena Intern at Ubadvocate

The document discusses the legal definition of rape under Indian law and two relevant Supreme Court cases. It summarizes guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal that allow quashing a rape FIR if the sexual relationship was truly consensual. It also summarizes Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra where the court quashed a FIR for a consensual extramarital relationship. The legal opinion is that Ram Bahadur's case fits these precedents so he should approach the high court to quash the FIR against him since his relationship with Usha appeared genuinely consensual.

Uploaded by

Rajkumar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

<RAJKUMAR MEENA>

Intern at ubAdvocate

Email- [email protected]

Contact- 9352080612

Rape is defined under section 375, IPC. One of the most essential ingredients for a sexual act to come
under the offence of “rape” is against the consent of women. Under section 482, CrPc, one can
approach the Hon’ble High Court for quashing of the FIR. If the Hon’ble HC after going through all the
facts concludes that there is an abuse of power then the HC can quash the FIR.

Hon’ble Supreme Court Rulings-

In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Hon'ble SC gave seven guidelines where power
can be exercised under section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR. In a particular guideline, the Hon’ble SC
said that after considering the facts of the FIR or the police statement or the complaint, the court
concludes that both of them know each other and were in love, the girl is educated and knows all the
consequences, her consent was voluntary and she never resisted before, neither she complained. The
couple also had a sexual relationship several times and the boy never promised to marry her. By all this,
it can be concluded that the sexual relationship was consensual.

In the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra (2018), the doctor was married and
had an extramarital affair with a nurse who was a widow. In this case, the Hon’ble SC held that after
admitting all the facts given in the FIR or the police statement or the complaint, it can be said that both
of them lived as husband and wife. Both of them worked in the same hospital and the doctor from the
very inception told her that he was married. Hence, he had no malafide intention. In this case, the
decision of the nurse was conscious, active, and made after the application of the mind. She knew the
consequences of her actions. Also, the consent is not obtained by misconception of fact. After admitting
all the facts it is a clever case of consensual sex. Hence, the Hon’ble SC quashed the FIR.

Legal Opinion-

Ram Bahadur should approach the Hon’ble HC for quashing of the FIR. In his case, both of them were in
love. Usha clearly knows the consequences of her sexual relationship with Ram Bahadur. He never
promised to marry her. Neither she resisted nor she complained in the past, hence, it cannot be said
that the sexual act was against the consent of Usha.

*This opinion is based on the Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40i7_GsQL8k of


Jeevan Prakash, AOR, Supreme Court.

Sd/-
Rajkumar Meena
Intern at ubAdvocate

You might also like