Summary
The Sessions Court discharged the appellant of offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC on a complaint that he had sexual relations with the complainant on a promise to marry her after both obtained divorces, but the High Court in revision set aside the discharge. The Supreme Court restored the discharge, holding that a relationship sustained consensually for years by a married woman who understood the consequences, where the accused had acted in furtherance of his promise, discloses neither a false promise from the inception nor criminal intimidation, and that the High Court exceeded the narrow limits of revisional jurisdiction; the criminal proceedings were terminated.
Issues
- Whether the material in the FIR and chargesheet disclosed the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC on the ground that consent was obtained by a false promise of marriage.
- Whether there was any material to establish criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.
- Whether the High Court, in revision, was justified in setting aside the Sessions Court's order of discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 375 and 376, Indian Penal Code, 1860Rape on the ground of consent vitiated by a promise to marry is made out only where the promise was false from the beginning, made solely to obtain consent with no intention of keeping it, and had a direct bearing on the woman's consent; a breach of a sincere promise is not a false promise. The relationship here was consensual from the start, the appellant's conduct (including a mangalsutra bearing initials) showed he was acting on his promise, and the complainant, a married woman, continued the relationship for years and obtained a divorce to sustain it. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860No material on record established criminal intimidation; the appellant's conduct was in furtherance of the promise to marry. (¶ 15)
- Section 227, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973At the stage of framing charge no mini-trial is permissible; the court takes the prosecution material at face value and asks whether the ingredients of the offence emerge. On that test there was sufficient material for the Sessions Court to discharge the appellant. (¶¶ 7, 16)
Held
- Physical relations established pursuant to a promise to marry do not amount to rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 IPC is made out only if the promise was made solely to obtain consent, with no intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning, and the false promise had a direct bearing on the woman's consent; Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), distinguishing a false promise from a breach of promise, applies squarely. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Where the complainant, herself in a subsisting marriage, entered and sustained a consensual relationship for about five years and later obtained a divorce to continue it, the prolonged relationship shows there was never force or deceit; her consent was given after active and reasoned deliberation. A fall-out between the parties does not render the earlier promise false or the conduct dishonest, particularly where the accused's conduct shows he was acting in furtherance of the promise. (¶ 15)
- At the stage of framing charge a mini-trial is not permissible; the court must determine from the prosecution material taken at face value whether the ingredients of the offence are disclosed. On that test the ingredients of Sections 375 and 506 IPC were not established and the Sessions Court rightly discharged the appellant under Section 227 CrPC. (¶ 16)
- Revisional jurisdiction against an order of discharge is extremely limited and must be exercised sparingly, only where the decision is grossly erroneous, there is non-compliance with the law, the finding rests on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. The High Court erred in undertaking an exhaustive analysis of the allegations and setting aside a discharge founded on the material on record. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order dated 03.01.2024 set aside and the Sessions Court's discharge order dated 08.06.2023 upheld; criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 281/2021, PS Sagarpur, under Sections 376/506 IPC terminated. Pending applications disposed of; no order as to costs.