Rehan Khan
On July 2, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled while dismissing a criminal case filed against a man for rape on the grounds of a false promise of marriage woman cannot claim the offence of rape solely because a long-term consensual relationship did not culminate in marriage.
“In the young age when a boy and a girl attract towards each other and they flow in emotions and believe that they love each other, normally they carry impression that their relationship will naturally be led to marriage. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her”, the Court said.
A man filed a petition before the honorable Court to quash a criminal case filed against him in 2021 accusing him of committing rape under a false promise of marriage.
The Petitioner and the Complainant were in a 11-year old relationship, since they were studying in Navodaya Vidyalaya High School, Badwara. The petitioner had also proposed and assured the prosecutrix for marriage, the complainant said. The couple were engaged in physical relations up until 2020, after which the relationship collapsed as the man refused to marry her. Thereafter, prosecutrix informed her father and lodged a report alleging that the petitioner has threatened her that if report is lodged, he would kill her. The man was charged under Sections 376,, 376(2)(n). 506 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC).
Subsequently, the man petitioned before the Hon’ble High Court in order to get the case dismissed wherein he contended that the physical relations between him and the complainant-woman were consensual and without any intention of deceit.
Senior Advocate Manish Datt and Advocate Eshaan Datt, learned Counsels appearing for the Petitioner argued that upon reviewing the facts mentioned in the complaint, it is evident that is not a case of rape. The counsels contended that the relationship between the prosecutrix and the petitioner was consensual and that the consent was not obtained under any misconception of fact. Furthermore, it was contended that the elements necessary to establish rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC are not present in this case.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi relied his judgement on precedents laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by High Courts on the issue, like in in re Uday (AIR 2003 SC 1639), in re Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (SLP (Crl) No. 2712 of 2019), in re Maheshwar Tigga (SLP (Crl.) No.393 of 2020) and in re Shivashankar @ Shiv (SLP(Crl.) No.454 of 2017) when the Courts reiterated the difference between “misconception of fact” and “promise to marriage”.
The Court explained that “There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances.
Thus, under such circumstances, the Court exercising inherent power provided under Section 482 Cr. P.C. quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings based on the complaint.
While the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment quashed the rape case on the grounds of a consensual relationship not leading to marriage, the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita now penalizes physical relationships based on false promises of marriage. This presents a significant challenge for the justice system, as it must navigate the complex nuances of consent and the intent behind such promises. The interpretation of these facts will be critical in ensuring that the legal framework aligns with both the protection of individuals’ rights and the principles of justice. The outcome of these interpretations will shape how consent and deceit are viewed within the legal framework, ultimately influencing future cases and societal perceptions of consent and accountability.
Case Name: Nageshwar Prasad Jaisal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 5754 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dwivedi