{"id":316580,"date":"2024-03-09T15:00:31","date_gmt":"2024-03-09T09:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=316580"},"modified":"2024-03-14T14:28:05","modified_gmt":"2024-03-14T08:58:05","slug":"no-rape-false-promise-to-marry-supreme-court-quashes-rape-case-married-woman","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/09\/no-rape-false-promise-to-marry-supreme-court-quashes-rape-case-married-woman\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018No rape on false promise to marry\u2019; Supreme Court quashes rape case by married woman"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In an appeal challenging order passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court on 1-08-2022 dismissing the petition under Section 482<\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) for quashment of First Information Report (‘FIR’), the Division Bench of CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. quashed the FIR and further criminal proceedings while noting the fact of absence of any false promise to marry, and the consent of complainant, her daughter and even parents who were living in the same house.<\/p>\n

The counsel for appellant claimed that the instant complaint was nothing but an abuse of the legal process, while stating the factual background that the complainant in the instant matter was a married lady having a grown-up daughter aged 15 years living with her parents. They raised the question over the claim of the complainant woman, who was already married, against the appellant having physical relations with her with the consent of her parents and daughter. Large discrepancies in the complaint were raised hinting towards consensual relations. Another aspect raised was the misstatement by the complainant regarding her claim of getting divorce from her previous marriage on 10-12-2018 and marriage with appellant in a temple in January 2019, stating that the decree of divorce was passed on 13-01-2021.<\/p>\n

While the counsel for state supported allegation of rape on false promise to marry to be made out, the counsel for complainant disclosed that the complainant was living with her parents on account of dispute with her husband from the earlier marriage. The complainant had a daughter aged 15 years old and the appellant was living in their house as a tenant. It was stated that “Finding that the complainant was in a disturbed matrimonial life, from the advances made by the appellant, the complainant fell in the trap. On a false promise to marry, both had started having physical relations.” It was further informed that the two got married in a temple and that her family also knew about their relations and marriage.<\/p>\n

The Court perused the FIR wherein the complainant disclosed about managing her own cloth shop, living separately from her husband, date of divorce being 10-12-2018, daughter aged 15-years-old. It further mentioned of regarding renting out the first floor of the house to a company where the appellant stayed, who would come and sit on her shop during free time. With gradually developing relations, the appellant proposed to marry her if she got divorce. Further instances of physical relations were disclosed stating that ‘he did not stop even when she said that they were yet to be married’ and when she insisted for marriage, the appellant refused on 11-12-2020 in the name of his family, and the FIR was registered on the same day.<\/p>\n

The Court further perused the complainant’s statement under Section 164<\/a> of CrPC<\/a> wherein she mentioned about staying with the appellant as a wife leading a married life having physical relations from January 2019 till June 2020, and thereafter complete refusal to respond to her calls and even marry her.<\/p>\n

The Court highlighted the complete change in the complainant’s stand, while admitted fact being the relations from 2017 onwards, alleged promise to marry in January 2019 after which they had physical relations. The Court took note of the evident consent of the complainant as well as her parents and daughter, who were living in the same house. It further cited the date of divorce belied from divorce decree which was dated 13-01-2021, reflecting that the complainant remarried during subsistence of her earlier marriage.<\/p>\n

The Court raised concern that “It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband.”<\/p>\n

The Court further hinted towards the fact of appellant having advanced loan of Rs 1 lakh to the complainant which was not returned, and that even after shifting to Maharashtra for his job, the appellant used to come and stay with her living as a husband and wife. The Court referred to Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 89<\/a> having similar facts when the Court refused the allegation of ‘consent for sexual relationship under misconception’.<\/p>\n

Placing reliance upon Naim Ahamed (supra), the Court set aside the order passed by High Court and quashed the said FIR and all subsequent proceedings.<\/p>\n

[XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 241<\/a>, decided on 6-03-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

Judgment authored by: Justice Rajesh Bindal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Rajesh Bindal<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n