Summary
The Court quashed an FIR alleging sexual offences on a promise of marriage and offences under the SC/ST Act. A promise must be false when made and directly connected to the decision to engage in the sexual act to vitiate consent on that basis. On the allegations as a whole, those requirements were absent. The charged SC/ST provisions postdated the messages complained of, and the earlier provisions were not attracted by the alleged private communications.
Issues
- When a promise of marriage vitiates consent through misconception of fact.
- Whether the FIR on its face disclosed the alleged offences, including under the SC/ST law applicable when the messages were sent.
Provisions considered
- Section 375, secondly and Explanation 2; section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent required voluntary, reasoned agreement. A marriage promise vitiated it on the ground asserted only if false in bad faith at inception and directly relevant to the decision to engage in the sexual act. (¶ 9–18)
- Former section 3(1)(x)–(xii), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989The law at the time of the 2015 communications applied. The alleged private messages and conduct did not satisfy its public-view, assault or domination-and-exploitation requirements. (¶ 21–22)
Held
- At the quashing stage the Court did not decide truth or weigh competing evidence, but examined whether allegations accepted in their entirety disclosed an offence. (¶ 7–8)
- A broken good-faith promise was distinct from a false promise made with no intention of performance. For the misconception alleged here, both bad faith at inception and an immediate relevance or direct nexus between the promise and the sexual decision were necessary. (¶ 14–18)
- The FIR as a whole did not allege that the initial promise was made deceitfully; subsequent failure to marry did not itself establish falsity. The alleged continuing relationship despite acknowledged marriage obstacles did not disclose the asserted misconception-based offence. (¶ 19–20)
- The charged amended SC/ST provisions commenced after the relevant messages. Nor did the allegations disclose the earlier offences: the communications were outside public view and the required assault or domination of will was absent. (¶ 21–23)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 7 February 2019 set aside and FIR dated 17 May 2016 quashed on the allegations as presented.