legal consultant puri

26/02/2026

▪️Supreme Court quashed an FIR u/s 376(2)(n) IPC filed by a married woman advocate against another advocate, alleging repeated r**e on the false promise of marriage.

▪️The complainant, who has an 11-year-old son and was in a subsisting marriage, claimed that she was in a relationship with the petitioner from September 2022 to January 2025. She alleged that he established sexual relations with her on the assurance of marriage and also forced her to abort the child when she became pregnant. After disputes, she lodged the FIR alleging r**e.

▪️Court noted that the complainant had married in 2011 and that her husband’s divorce petition was still pending before Chhattisgarh High Court. Thus, at the time of the alleged promise, the complainant was legally married. Court observed that during the relationship there existed a subsisting marriage, making any promise of marriage legally impossible to perform.

▪️Reiterating settled law, Supreme Court held that not every sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage constitutes r**e. A charge of r**e can be sustained only if the promise was false from the very inception and made solely to obtain sexual consent.

▪️It further observed that under Section 5(i) of Hindu Marriage Act, such a promise was not legally enforceable since the complainant herself was not eligible to marry.

▪️Court also emphasised that both parties were advocates and fully aware of the complainant’s marital status. It also cautioned against the growing tendency to criminalise failed consensual relationships and stressed that r**e law must be confined to cases involving lack of consent, coercion, or grave deception.

▪️Holding that no offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC was made out even if the allegations were accepted at face value, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR, the chargesheet, and all consequential proceedings.

▪️For a detailed summary and judgment, visit our website ekamnyaay.org.

13/03/2025

Section 25(2) Hindu Marriage Act | Court Can Grant Maintenance To Wife Exceeding The Amount Claimed By Her: Orissa High Court.

The Orissa High Court has ruled that a competent Court, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as to provide just and fair means, can grant maintenance to wife exceeding the amount which she claimed in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act').Clarifying the disputed question concerning jurisdiction of Courts to grant enhanced maintenance, the Division...

13/03/2025

J&K High Court Clarifying the legal position under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque does not give rise to a cause of action under Section 138 of the Act.

While dismissing a petition challenging a complaint under the NI Act Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that a single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques is maintainable if a consolidated demand notice is issued and remains unpaid beyond the statutory period.

“The issue as to whether a single complaint would be maintainable in respect of more than three cheques has been dealt with by various High Courts of this Country and it has been the consistent view of the Courts that a single complaint in respect of dishonour of more than three cheques is maintainable if a consolidated notice of demand is served upon the accused”, Justice Dhar opined.

The dispute arose when the respondent, Tariq Ahmad Wani, entered into an agreement with the petitioner, Fayaz Ahmad Rather, for the purchase of a piece of land for ₹20 lakh. However, during verification, it was discovered that the land was mortgaged with a bank. Consequently, the respondent requested the petitioner to refund the sale consideration.

To repay the amount, the petitioner issued four post-dated cheques of ₹5 lakh each. However, when the respondent presented these cheques for encashment on they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, a single legal notice was sent to the petitioner, demanding repayment within fifteen days. As the petitioner failed to make the payment, the respondent filed a complaint before the Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub Judge), Pulwama, which took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner.

Aggrieved, the petitioner, represented by Advocate M. Amin Khan, argued that the complaint was not maintainable as it combined four separate instances of cheque dishonour, thereby violating Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). According to this provision, no more than three offences of the same kind committed within a year can be tried together. The petitioner asserted that each dishonoured cheque constituted a distinct offence and, therefore, the respondent was required to file separate complaints.

On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Advocate Syed Sajad Geelani, countered that a single complaint was legally permissible as all four cheques were issued for the same transaction, and a consolidated legal notice had been served. The respondent submitted that the cause of action did not arise merely upon dishonour but upon failure to pay the demanded amount within the statutory fifteen-day period.

Justice Dhar, while examining the petition, reiterated the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act:

The cheque must be issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.
The cheque must be dishonoured due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged amount.
A demand notice must be served on the drawer within thirty days of dishonour.
The drawer must fail to make the payment within fifteen days of receipt of the demand notice.
“All the aforesaid four requirements have to be satisfied for constituting an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Thus, unless a demand notice is served by the payee upon the drawer of the cheque after receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque and the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within fifteen days despite receipt of such notice of demand, the offence under Section 138 NI Act would not be complete”, the court explained.

The mere issuance or dishonour of a cheque does not itself give rise to a cause of action; rather, it is the drawer's failure to make the payment within fifteen days of receiving the demand notice that constitutes the offence.

Justice Dhar observed that in the present case, a single demand notice was served on the petitioner for all four dishonoured cheques, and the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated time. Consequently, a single cause of action arose, making the complaint legally sustainable, he underscored.

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's order in Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat (2019), relied upon by the petitioner, noting that it dealt with consolidation of multiple complaints, rather than the maintainability of a single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques.

Dismissing the petition, the Court held that Section 219 CrPC was not applicable as only one offence was committed when the petitioner failed to pay the demanded amount within fifteen days of receiving the joint legal notice.

13/03/2025

Here are some important topics or content areas from books that are necessary or valuable for human life, personal growth, and understanding the world:

13/11/2024

24/10/2024