Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Vaibhav Deshpande, filed a criminal application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 338/2022 and the charge-sheet registered at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution case was that the victim, a 26-year-old woman, alleged that the applicant had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage, thereby obtaining her consent under a misconception of fact. The parties were acquainted since 2015 when they were both engineering students in Nagpur. Their friendship developed into a love relationship, and the applicant expressed his desire to marry her. On 01.06.2016, the applicant took the victim to his rented room and established sexual relations, assuring her of marriage. The relationship continued over several years, with the applicant's parents also allegedly consenting to the marriage. In 2018, the applicant's father visited the victim's parents at Bhandara. However, in 2022, the applicant allegedly refused to marry the victim, leading to the FIR. The court framed the legal issue as whether the consent was obtained by a false promise from the inception or whether it was a case of breach of promise due to subsequent events. The applicant argued that the relationship was consensual and that the promise of marriage was genuine at the time, but circumstances changed later. The state and the victim argued that the promise was false from the beginning, as the applicant had no intention to marry. The court analyzed the facts, noting that the relationship lasted for about six years, the victim was an educated adult, and there was no evidence that the applicant made a false promise with deceitful intent at the outset. The court distinguished between a 'breach of promise' (which does not constitute rape) and a 'false promise' (which vitiates consent). Applying this distinction, the court held that the material on record did not prima facie show that the promise was false from the inception. Consequently, the consent was not vitiated, and no offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC was made out. Regarding the SC/ST Act, the court found no allegation that the sexual act was committed on the ground of the victim's caste, and thus the provisions were not attracted. The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent - Promise of Marriage - Distinction between 'breach of promise' and 'false promise' - Section 376(2)(n) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court examined whether the consent for sexual intercourse was obtained under a false promise of marriage from the inception or whether it was a case of breach of promise due to subsequent change of circumstances. Held that where the promise was not false at the time of making and the relationship continued over a long period, the consent is not vitiated, and no offence of rape is made out (Paras 3, 10-13). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Inherent Powers - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court considered the scope of quashing an FIR and charge-sheet when the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence. Held that if the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case, the court can exercise inherent powers to prevent abuse of process (Paras 3, 14). C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Ingredients - Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The court examined whether the alleged acts were committed on the ground that the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Held that in the absence of any allegation that the sexual act was committed due to the victim's caste, the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted (Paras 4, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consent given by the victim for sexual intercourse under a promise of marriage was vitiated by a false promise made with deceitful means, or whether it was a mere breach of promise, and whether a prima facie case for rape and offences under the SC/ST Act is made out.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet in Crime No. 338/2022 registered at Sadar Police Station, Nagpur, for offences under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
Law Points
- Distinction between breach of promise and false promise
- Consent under misconception of fact
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC
- Prima facie case for rape
- Ingredients of Section 376(2)(n) IPC
- Applicability of SC/ST Act in consensual relationships
