In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a criminal case against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage. The court clarified that a woman cannot claim rape merely because a long-term consensual relationship did not end in marriage.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of the Jabalpur Bench emphasized the need to differentiate between a breach of promise and a false promise intended to deceive. The case involved a man and a woman who had been in a consensual relationship for ten years, starting in high school and continuing until 2020. The woman filed a First Information Report (FIR) in 2021, alleging that the man promised to marry her but later refused, leading her to accuse him of rape by making a false promise of marriage.
Justice Dwivedi highlighted that both the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently ruled that consensual relationships that do not result in marriage cannot be classified as rape. He noted that youthful relationships often carry the hope of marriage, but when they do not, it does not automatically become a criminal offense of rape.
“In young age, when a boy and a girl are attracted to each other and believe they love each other, they often assume their relationship will lead to marriage. However, when it fails, the girl, feeling betrayed, cannot file an FIR claiming rape,” observed Justice Dwivedi.
The court acknowledged the woman’s feelings of betrayal but emphasized that a long-term consensual relationship without complaints until the man refused to marry could not be retroactively construed as rape. The judge pointed out that the relationship had been consensual from the beginning and lasted for a decade, indicating mutual consent rather than coercion or deceit.
“In this case, it is difficult to support the charge that the petitioner developed a physical relationship with the woman on a false promise of marriage. It is also challenging to classify sexual intercourse in a ten-year relationship as ‘rape’ based on the woman’s allegations,” the court stated.
Justice Dwivedi further distinguished between a false promise of marriage intended to deceive and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances. The court reiterated that not all broken promises amount to rape, especially when the relationship was consensual and prolonged.
“There may be situations where a person with the best intentions is unable to marry due to unavoidable circumstances,” the court noted. In such cases, a woman cannot claim she was misled when entering into a physical relationship.
For a claim to fall under “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the misconception must be immediate and relevant to the act of consent. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the accused and quashed the criminal case, concluding that the elements required to constitute rape under Section 375 of the IPC were not met.
“This case does not fall within the definition of rape as defined in Section 375 of IPC because the consensual relationship and affair between the parties are evident from the records and admitted by the woman. Therefore, if their relationship did not culminate in marriage and the promise was not fulfilled, it cannot be said that the woman’s consent for a physical relationship was obtained by the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage,” the court concluded.
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==
