Summary
The Supreme Court quashed a rape charge sheet and the cognizance order where the allegations described a consensual relationship followed by a refusal to marry, without alleging that the marriage promise was false when made. Even accepting the allegations as true, the necessary basis for treating consent as vitiated by a false promise was absent. The High Court should not have deferred the issue to trial.
Issues
- Whether allegations of a consensual relationship followed by refusal to marry, without an allegation of initial deceit, justified continuation of the rape prosecution.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Quashing was warranted because the allegations, taken as true, did not disclose the offence; trial evidence was unnecessary to identify that deficiency. (¶ 11-12)
- Section 90, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court applied the distinction between a promise false from its inception and a subsequent breach, requiring a direct nexus between the false promise and consent. (¶ 9-11)
Held
- A subsequent failure to fulfil a marriage promise is distinct from a promise given in bad faith with no intention to fulfil it. To vitiate consent, the false promise must also bear a direct nexus to the decision to engage in the sexual act. (¶ 9-10)
- The FIR and the complainant’s statement described a voluntary relationship lasting about one and a half years and a later refusal to marry. They did not allege that the promise was false at its inception. Even assuming the allegations were correct, the offence was not made out. (¶¶ 7-8, 11)
- The High Court erred in requiring the issue to await evidence at trial. The charge sheet and the order taking cognizance were quashed. Counsel stated that no further steps would be taken in the appellant’s cross-FIR against the complainant. (¶ 11-13)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside, charge sheet quashed and cognizance order quashed and set aside.