Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition seeking quashment of FIR and the final report alleging indulgence in physical relations under the false promise of marriage, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., quashed the FIR and the final report against the petitioner, noting that the allegations did not fulfill the criteria for the offenses charged under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506, and 366 IPC.
In the instant matter, the prosecutrix on 26-11-2021 filed a written complaint at Mahila Thana, Katni alleging that the petitioner developed physical relations with her under the false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix stated that she knew the petitioner, who belonged to the same vicinity and caste as her. The prosecutrix stated that they had known each other for 11 years and their physical relationship begin in June 2010 and continued till 2020. The prosecutrix claimed that the petitioner eventually refused to marry her and threatened to kill her if she reported him.
The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and did not constitute rape. The petitioner claimed that the consent was not obtained under a misconception of fact as per Section 375 of the IPC and requested for the quashment of FIR and the final report set aside, citing the consensual nature of the relationship. However, the Stated argued that the prosecutrix’s consent was based on the petitioner’s false promise of marriage. The State emphasised on the prosecutrix’s consistent statements in her complaint and under Section 164 CrPC. It was asserted that there exists sufficient material in the case diary and charge sheet to constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.
The Court referred to Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 9 SCC 608, where the Supreme Court held that consent given by prosecutrix in a love affair cannot be deemed under a misconception if given voluntarily, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 108, where the Supreme Court distinguished between false promises made in bad faith and subsequent breaches of genuine promises, Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108, where the Supreme Court highlighted the need to determine if consent was given under fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage, Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 18 SCC 191, where the Supreme Court held that long-term relationships with sexual intercourse cannot easily be construed as rape based on subsequent refusal to marry and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 7 SCC 675, where the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings on the grounds that the relationship developed consensually but the marriage did not fructify due to societal differences.
The Court also noted that “in a young age when a boy and a girl attracts towards each other and they flow in emotions and believe that they love each other, normally they carry impression that their relationship will naturally be led to marriage. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her.”
The Court noted that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were in a consensual relationship for nearly a decade, with both being well-educated individuals. The Court stated that the in the present case the consent cannot be considered to be a consent obtained under misconception of fact reason being that the relationship between the parties was existing for a long period of 10 years and then too the prosecutrix never realized that the petitioner was exploiting her by developing physical relation with her continuously. The Court emphasised that while a promise to marry followed by a refusal could be morally reprehensible, but the same did not amount to rape under the legal definitions unless there was clear evidence of fraudulent intent.
The Court noted that the present case did not establish a clear case of rape under Section 375 IPC as the consent given by the prosecutrix was not under a misconception of fact regarding marriage but was given voluntary, considering the long duration of their relationship. The Court also asserted that the above-mentioned precedents establish that a false promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is shown that the promise was made without intention to marry from the very beginning.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, the Court held that the petitioner’s actions do not meet the criteria for the offences charged under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506, and 366 IPC and the consent was not vitiated by a false promise of marriage under the IPC. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and the final report against the petitioner.
[Nageshwar Prasad Jaisal v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine MP 4746, order dated 02-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Manish Datt, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Eshaan Datt, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri A. Bhurok, Counsel for the Respondent 1/State
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
