Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Reliance is also placed on Yedla Srinivasa Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006)11 SCC 615, to contend that when the victim has submitted to the lust of the accused misled by the promise of marriage, the consent obtained is not a consent in the eye of law.

Further reliance is placed on Bhumpaka Praveen Kumar vs. State of Telangana, ALD (CRI) (2015)1 681, which was a case where a man had promised a woman to marry her, but later rejected the proposal on the ground that his parents did not agree. They got married inspite of it and had stayed together as husband and wife and after some time, the accused had deserted her. A case having been registered against the accused therein, cognizance had been taken under sections 417, 323, 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the accused was convicted for an offence under Section 417 IPC. The learned Counsel would contend that the said case would apply on all fours to the present case on hand.

a) To direct the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 493, 506, 109 and 120(b) of IPC along with Section 417 of IPC in C.C.No.22834/2015.

b) To direct the Magistrate to order further investigation by appointing any independent investigation authority in

c) To issue a direction to the VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance against Smt. Datty Sadananda Gowda and Mr. D.V.Sadananda Gowda for the said offences in C.C.No.22834/2015.

Reliance is placed on the following decisions:-

a) Criminal Appeal No.336 of 1996 decided on 19.2.2003, Uday Kumar vs. State of Karnataka.

It is held that there are no ingredients to satisfy the requirements under Section 375 of IPC as the prosecutrix had consented to sexual intercourse by the accused and was out of her free will and consent.

b) Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2016 Crl. L.J. 1136 in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2016.

It is held that the accused sexually exploited prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage and the same will not constitute an offence under Section 417 of IPC. It is further held that fraudulent or dishonest intention to commit an offence under Section 417 of IPC is not made out.

However, if the complainant should succeed in the pending Revision Petition in Cr.RP No.844/2016 seeking that the allegations of offences punishable under Section 366 and Section 376 IPC, could be pursued against the petitioner, the present order would not preclude the complainant from seeking that an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC should be revived in the Charge sheet.

Sd/-

JUDGE nv*