Summary
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR and chargesheet under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 377, 504 and 506 IPC alleging rape on a false promise of marriage, holding that the complainant's year-long consensual relationship with the accused, maintained while she was still married to another man, did not disclose consent vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC and that the prosecution fell within the Bhajan Lal categories of inherently improbable and malicious proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, made out the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC where the complainant had maintained a consensual relationship with the appellant for over a year.
- Whether the complainant's consent could be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact within Section 90 IPC on an alleged promise of marriage made while she was still married to another person.
- Whether the High Court erred in declining to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings as an abuse of process under the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
Provisions considered
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent given under a misconception of fact is not consent; the Court found no material showing inducement or misrepresentation by the appellant to secure sexual relations without intending to keep the promise, and noted that the complainant's Khulanama from her former husband was executed only on 29.12.2022, after the relationship and alleged incident, making it inconceivable that she acted on a marriage promise while still married; such a promise was in any case illegal and unenforceable against the appellant. (¶ 8)
- Sections 376 and 376(2)(n), Indian Penal Code, 1860Even on the FIR's own version the complainant's consent did not appear to have been obtained against her will merely on an assurance of marriage: the parties fell in love, she sustained the relationship for over twelve months and visited lodges with him twice, so her narrative did not match her conduct and the ingredients of the offence were not established; treating every breach of a promise to marry as a false promise and prosecuting under Section 376 was described as a folly. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860No evidence of coercion or threat of injury to the complainant was found; the relationship had been cordial throughout and she became agitated only when the appellant graduated and left for his hometown, so the offence of criminal intimidation was not made out. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The case fell within categories (5) and (7) of paragraph 102 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (allegations inherently improbable; proceedings maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive), warranting exercise of the High Court's inherent power to prevent abuse of process; the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings itself rather than leave the appellant to face trial. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Where a complainant and the accused were acquainted, fell in love and she sustained a physical relationship for over twelve months, continuing to visit him at lodges, her allegation that intercourse was without consent and obtained merely on an assurance of marriage is not corroborated by her own conduct, even taking the FIR as true. (¶ 8)
- Consent cannot be treated as obtained under a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC where there is no material showing inducement or misrepresentation made without any intention of keeping the promise, and where the complainant was still married to another person when the relationship began, so that a promise of marriage to her was illegal and unenforceable against the accused. (¶ 8)
- There was no evidence of coercion or threat to attract Section 506 IPC; the complainant's uninvited visit to the appellant's native village reflected an agitated state of mind and suggested that the prosecution was launched with an underlying motive. It was also improbable that a previously married woman with a four-year-old child would continue a prolonged association with a man who had sexually assaulted and exploited her. (¶ 8)
- A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking the criminal machinery of the State; the Court has repeatedly warned that it is a folly to treat every breach of a promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute under Section 376 IPC. This was not a case of a false promise to marry at the outset. (¶ 9)
- As the ingredients of Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC were not established, the case fell within categories 102(5) and 102(7) of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal for exercise of the power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process. Considering that the appellant was 25 years old with a lifetime ahead of him, the interest of justice required that he not undergo trial, and the proceedings were quashed at that stage. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 28.06.2024 set aside; C.R. No. 490/2023 of Karad Taluka Police Station and the proceedings in RCC No. 378/2023 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karad quashed; appellant discharged and bail bonds cancelled; pending applications disposed of.