Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the accused against the order of the Trial Court framing charges against him under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (‘Dowry Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Rakesh Kainthla, J., allowed the petition, holding that there was not even a single averment in the complaint that there was a false promise to marry the complainant or that the marriage between them had become impossible. The Court also held that there was no material before the Trial Court to frame charges against him under Section 4 of the Dowry Act.
Background
In 2014, the marriage between the complainant and the accused was decided. It was agreed that the marriage would be solemnised after 2-3 years, but the accused and the complainant remained in touch. When the complainant travelled to Shimla to take an examination, the accused offered to accompany her, and they stayed in a hotel. The accused allegedly forced the complainant to maintain sexual relations with him. Thereafter, the betrothal ceremony was solemnised between the two.
Again, when the complainant went to Chandigarh for coaching for a competitive examination, the accused used to visit her and allegedly maintained physical relations with her. On another occasion, when the complainant refused to establish physical relations with the accused, he physically abused her.
In 2017, the marriage was supposed to be solemnised between the two, however, it could not be done, and the accused moved to Gwalior without informing the complainant.
When the physical relationship between the couple was revealed to the families, the parents of the accused assured the complainant and her parents that they would get the couple married in 2019. The date of marriage was then postponed to 2020-21. When the complainant’s mother and the Up-Pradhan visited the house of the accused regarding the marriage, the family of the accused demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs and a vehicle. The complainant’s father sold his land to meet the demand of the accused. Thus, the matter was reported to the police, and after an investigation, a chargesheet was filed.
The Trial Court framed a charge against the accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417, read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Act. Aggrieved, the accused filed the present petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court referred to State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688, wherein it was held that at the time of framing of the charge, the Court has to see the material collected by the prosecution to determine whether a case was made out for proceeding with the trial. It is not necessary to examine the defence of the accused.
Upon perusal of the complaint, the Court noted that the accused’s parents demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs and a vehicle. Thus, the Court held that as per the statements of eyewitnesses, the demand was not made by the accused, and there was no material before the Trial Court to frame charges against him under Section 4 of the Dowry Act.
The Court further noted that the complainant asserted that she entered a relationship with the accused because he had promised to marry her. In this regard, the Court referred to Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3471, wherein it was held that if a person acts after knowing about its consequences, it indicates her consent. When the prosecution alleges that a sexual relationship was maintained by making a false promise to marry, such a physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise to marry and not qualified by other circumstances. When the relationship continued for a prolonged period, it cannot be said that the same was a result of a promise to marry. It was also held that when the promise to marry was made initially, but a person was not able to fulfill the promise, it would not fall within the definition of a false promise, attracting the penal provision of Section 375 of the IPC.
The Court stated that in the present case, the complainant stated that the marriage was settled in the year 2014, and the physical relations began in 2015. The date of marriage was fixed in 2017, but it could not be performed due to a mishap. Thereafter, the marriage was fixed in 2019, and the alleged dowry demand was made in 2021. The Court stated that there was not even a single averment in the complaint that the accused had refused to marry the complainant or that the marriage between them had become impossible. The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years made it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry. Therefore, the Court held that the Trial Court was not justified in framing the charges under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.
Noting that the Trial Court framed the charges under Section 417 of the IPC, stating that the accused obtained Rs. 5 Lakhs at the time of construction of the house by promising the complainant that he would marry her, the Court stated that this was not mentioned in the FIR or the charge sheet. It was only mentioned that a demand of Rs 5 Lakhs was made by the accused. Further, the statement of the complainant’s mother nowhere showed that the money was paid by her. Therefore, there was no material for framing charges under Section 417 of the IPC.
Consequently, the Court held that the Trial Court erred in framing the charges against the accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417, read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Act.
Hence, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, thereby discharging the accused.
[Raj Kumar Sharma v. State of H.P., Cr. Revision No. 524 of 2024, decided on 07-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: B.L. Soni,Advocate
For the respondent: Ajit Sharma, Additional Advocate General
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
