Summary
FIR under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC quashed. Where two adults lived together as a live-in couple in rented accommodation for over two years, a presumption arises that the physical relationship was based on valid consent; a later refusal to marry does not convert it into rape on a false promise of marriage, particularly where the FIR does not allege that physical relations were established only because of the promise and an undisputed settlement agreement of 19.11.2023 records that the parties loved each other. The allegations of assault and abuse lacked material particulars.
Issues
- Whether an FIR alleging rape on a false promise of marriage should be quashed where the parties, both adults, had lived together as a live-in couple for over two years.
- Whether a refusal to marry after a long consensual live-in relationship amounts to a false promise of marriage vitiating consent.
- Whether the allegation of forcible intercourse on 18.11.2023 and the allegations of assault and abuse could survive in view of the settlement agreement executed on 19.11.2023.
Provisions considered
- Section 376 (read with Section 375), Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent is vitiated by a false promise of marriage only where the maker had no intention of keeping it when made; a mere breach is not a false promise. Given a two-year live-in relationship, the absence of any allegation that physical relations would not have occurred but for the promise, and the settlement recital that the parties were in love, the appellant could not be prosecuted for rape on the ground of refusal to marry. (¶¶ 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860The allegations of assault and abuse were not supported by any material particulars, and the alleged sexual assault of 18.11.2023 was negated by the recital in the settlement agreement of the next day that the parties loved each other. (¶¶ 3, 17)
- Section 528 (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, 1973), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The appellant had invoked the High Court's inherent power to quash the FIR; the High Court declined because the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence. The Supreme Court held the FIR and consequential proceedings to be an abuse of the process of court and quashed them. (¶¶ 3, 18)
Held
- Where the relationship between the parties was not merely acquaintance but living together as a couple under one roof in rented accommodation for over two years without any complaint in between, and the FIR does not allege that the physical relationship was established only because of a promise of marriage, a presumption arises of valid consent for initiating and maintaining the physical relationship. (¶¶ 10, 14, 16)
- Following Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, a promise to marry vitiates consent through a misconception of fact only where it was false when made, the maker then intending not to abide by it but to deceive the woman into sexual relations; a mere breach of a promise is not a false promise. Deepak Gulati and Sonu @ Subash Kumar applied. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- In a long live-in relationship, an expression by the parties of a desire to formalise it by marriage does not by itself indicate that the relationship was a consequence of that desire. With more women financially independent and live-in relationships proliferating, a court must not adopt a pedantic approach; based on the length of the relationship and the conduct of the parties it may presume implied consent to the relationship regardless of a wish to convert it into a marital bond. (¶ 15)
- The settlement agreement dated 19.11.2023, not disputed by the informant, records that the parties had been in love. The appellant therefore cannot be prosecuted for rape on the ground of refusal to marry; the allegations of assault and abuse are unsupported by material particulars, and the alleged sexual assault of 18.11.2023 is negated by the recital in the agreement. (¶ 17)
- The FIR and the consequential proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court and deserve to be quashed. (¶ 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of the High Court dated 11.12.2024 set aside; FIR No. 482 of 2023, Police Station Khatima, and the consequential proceedings (including the cognizance order dated 13.02.2024) quashed; pending applications disposed of.