In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a criminal case against a man accused of rape on the grounds of a broken promise of marriage. The court clarified that a woman cannot allege rape just because a long-term consensual relationship did not lead to marriage.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of the Jabalpur Bench delivered the decision, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between a breach of promise and a false promise made with the intent to deceive. The case involved a man who had been in a consensual relationship with the complainant for 10 years. The relationship began in high school and continued until 2020, including physical relations.
The woman alleged that the man had promised to marry her but later refused, prompting her to file an FIR in 2021, accusing him of rape by making a false promise of marriage. However, Justice Dwivedi pointed out that courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently ruled that consensual relationships, even if they don’t end in marriage, cannot be classified as rape.
“In youth, when a boy and girl are attracted to each other and believe they are in love, they often assume that their relationship will lead to marriage. However, sometimes relationships fail. A woman cannot claim she was raped just because the relationship did not result in marriage,” Justice Dwivedi said.
The court recognized the woman’s feelings of betrayal but emphasized that a consensual physical relationship over a long period, without any complaint until the refusal to marry, could not retroactively be considered rape. The relationship had been consensual from the start and continued for a decade, indicating mutual consent rather than deceit or coercion.
“In this case, it is difficult to uphold the charge that the petitioner developed a physical relationship with the complainant on a false promise of marriage. It is also hard to classify a 10-year relationship as ‘rape’ under the complainant’s own allegations,” the court added.
Justice Dwivedi further explained that there is a difference between a false promise made with the intent to deceive and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances. The court clarified that not all broken promises can be categorized as rape, especially when the relationship was consensual and lasted for years.
“There are situations when a person with the best of intentions is unable to marry the other party due to unavoidable circumstances. In such cases, the woman cannot claim she was under a ‘misconception of fact’ when entering into a physical relationship,” the court noted.
For a case to fall under the “misconception of fact” provision in Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the misconception must be immediate and relevant to the act of consent. The court concluded that the present case did not meet the legal criteria for rape under Section 375 of the IPC and quashed the criminal case against the accused.
“The relationship between the parties was consensual and admitted by the complainant. Since their relationship did not result in marriage, it cannot be said that her consent was obtained on the false pretext of marriage,” the court stated.
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==
