Path: Home » NEWS against MEN » Rape Case » Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case, Distinguishes Good Faith Promise to Marry

Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case, Distinguishes Good Faith Promise to Marry

The Supreme Court has quashed a rape case, ruling that there is a distinction between a false promise of marriage and a genuine promise made in good faith that was not later fulfilled. A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh delivered this decision while hearing the case.

The case involved a consensual relationship between the appellant and the respondent (a woman) from 2009 to 2011. The woman claimed that the relationship was based on the man’s assurance that they would marry. However, she only filed a complaint in 2016, leading to an FIR being registered on December 16, 2016, under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In its ruling, the court noted that the FIR was an abuse of the criminal process. “The parties voluntarily chose to have a physical relationship without marriage over a significant period. They later parted ways, which can happen before or after marriage. The respondent waited three years before filing the FIR. These facts are clear, and we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated December 16, 2016,” the court stated.

The court further added that allowing the case to proceed would only result in unnecessary harassment of the appellant through the legal system. The ruling also referenced a previous 2019 Supreme Court case, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., where the court quashed an FIR based on a similar scenario. In that case, the complainant was aware of the obstacles to marriage yet continued to engage in the relationship.

The bench clarified that there is a key difference between a false promise of marriage, made with the intent to deceive, and a promise made in good faith but not ultimately fulfilled. The court cited Sections 375 (Explanation 2) and 90 of the IPC, 1860, as the basis for this distinction.

As a result, the criminal appeal was allowed, the previous judgment was set aside, and the proceedings based on the FIR were quashed. Both parties were instructed to bear their own costs.

Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *