Summary
The complainant alleged that the appellant had a sexual relationship with her on a promise of marriage and then got engaged to someone else in December 2017. The record showed that both were educated adults in a consensual relationship from 2013. It had continued before, during and after her own marriage to another man in 2014, which ended in divorce by mutual consent in 2017. The Allahabad High Court refused to quash the rape case under Section 482 CrPC, treating the matter as raising questions of fact. The Court held that, taking the FIR and charge-sheet as they stood, nothing showed a promise of marriage that was false from the start and that induced her consent. The relationship was purely consensual, so the ingredients of Section 376 IPC were absent. The appeal was allowed and the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order were quashed.
Issues
- Whether, on the allegations taken as they stand, a consensual relationship between adults that continued through the complainant's marriage to another man disclosed rape on a false promise of marriage, justifying quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 375, 376 and 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860Consent is vitiated by a misconception of fact only if the promise of marriage was false at inception and directly induced the sexual act. The allegations showed a long consensual relationship, not such a promise, so Section 376 was not made out. (¶¶ 10, 11, 13)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Under Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations, taken at face value, disclose no offence. The undisputed facts showed no offence, so the High Court's refusal on the ground that facts were disputed was misconceived. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 12, 14)
Held
- Under Section 482 the test is whether the allegations, taken at face value and accepted entirely, disclose the offence. The court does not weigh evidence, but may quash where the alleged facts do not constitute the offence of which cognizance was taken. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Following Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, consent to a sexual act is vitiated by a promise to marry only if the promise was false and made in bad faith from the outset, and bore a direct nexus to the woman's decision. A breach of a promise made in good faith is not a false promise. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Both parties were educated adults in a relationship from 2013 to December 2017. It continued before, during and after the complainant's marriage to another man, which ended in divorce by mutual consent. Taken as they stand, the allegations show a purely consensual relationship and no false promise inducing consent, so the ingredients of Section 376 are absent. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The High Court dismissed the application merely because it saw disputed questions of fact. The undisputed facts themselves showed the offence was not made out, so that basis was misconceived. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order is set aside and the FIR, charge-sheet and cognizance order under Section 376 IPC are quashed.