Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Promise to Marry Case Due to Lack of Evidence of False Promise from Inception. Court holds that breach of promise to marry without proof of initial fraudulent intent does not constitute rape under Section 375 IPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Shyjeesh K. Thomas, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashment of Crime No. 63 of 2020 registered at City Police Station, Shirpur, and the consequential charge-sheet bearing No. 30 of 2020, which gave rise to Sessions Case No. 57 of 2021 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Dhule. The respondent No. 2, Rubi Pulikkal Ravi, had filed a private complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur, alleging that the applicant, a computer teacher at the same school, promised to marry her and forcibly maintained physical relations with her on false assurances of marriage. She also alleged that the applicant borrowed money from her and forced her to undergo an abortion. The Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR, leading to the registration of the crime and subsequent charge-sheet under Sections 376, 417, 420, 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The applicant sought quashing of the FIR and charge-sheet on the ground that the complainant was a consenting adult and there was no evidence of a false promise from the inception. The court analyzed the allegations and found that the complainant was a mature woman aged 32 years, a teacher, and had two children. She continued the relationship even after the applicant got married in February 2020, which indicated that her consent was not vitiated by any false promise. The court held that the essential ingredient of rape under Section 375 IPC, i.e., lack of consent or consent obtained by misconception of fact, was not made out. The court also noted that there were no allegations of dowry demand or payment, and the POCSO Act was not applicable as the complainant was an adult. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the FIR and charge-sheet.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The court examined whether the FIR and charge-sheet alleging rape on false promise of marriage and other offences should be quashed. Held that where the complainant was a consenting adult and there is no evidence that the promise to marry was false from the inception, the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC are not made out. The court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet. (Paras 1-10)

B) Indian Penal Code - Rape - Consent - Section 375 and 376 IPC - Promise to Marry - The court considered whether sexual relations on a promise to marry amounts to rape. Held that if the promise was not false from the beginning and the woman consented freely, it is not rape. The court found that the complainant was a mature woman who continued the relationship despite knowing the accused's marriage, and there was no evidence of initial fraudulent intent. (Paras 5-9)

C) Indian Penal Code - Cheating - Section 417 and 420 IPC - The court examined whether the accused cheated the complainant by promising marriage. Held that since the complainant was aware of the accused's marriage and continued the relationship, there is no deception. The charge of cheating is not made out. (Para 9)

D) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - The court found no allegations of demand or payment of dowry, and thus the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act are not attracted. (Para 9)

E) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 5 and 6 - The court noted that the complainant was an adult, and the POCSO Act is not applicable. (Para 9)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet alleging rape on false promise of marriage and other offences should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the complainant was a consenting adult and there is no evidence of false promise from the inception.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and quashed Crime No. 63 of 2020, charge-sheet No. 30 of 2020, and Sessions Case No. 57 of 2021.

Law Points

  • Section 482 CrPC
  • quashing of FIR
  • promise to marry
  • consent
  • Section 375 IPC
  • Section 376 IPC
  • Section 417 IPC
  • Section 420 IPC
  • Section 406 IPC
  • Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
  • 1961
  • Section 5 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
  • 2012
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (11) 28

Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2020

2022-11-11

Mangesh S. Patil, Abhay S. Waghwase

Mr. Harshal P. Randhir for Applicant, Mr. S. J. Salgare APP for Respondent No.1, Mr. Vikrant P. Raje for Respondent No.2

Shyjeesh K. Thomas

State of Maharashtra and Rubi Pulikkal Ravi

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal application under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR and charge-sheet.

Remedy Sought

Applicant sought quashment of Crime No. 63 of 2020, charge-sheet No. 30 of 2020, and Sessions Case No. 57 of 2021.

Filing Reason

Applicant alleged that the FIR and charge-sheet were based on false allegations of rape on false promise of marriage, cheating, and other offences, and that the complainant was a consenting adult.

Previous Decisions

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur, directed registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. Police investigated and filed charge-sheet, leading to Sessions Case No. 57 of 2021.

Issues

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet alleging rape on false promise of marriage and other offences should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the complainant was a consenting adult and there is no evidence of false promise from the inception.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant argued that the complainant was a mature woman, a teacher, and had two children. She continued the relationship even after the applicant got married, indicating consent. There was no false promise from the beginning. Respondent argued that the applicant promised to marry and forcibly maintained physical relations, and also borrowed money and forced abortion.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence of rape under Section 375 IPC based on false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was false from the inception and that the consent was given under a misconception of fact. In this case, the complainant was a mature woman who continued the relationship even after the accused married another, indicating that her consent was not vitiated. Therefore, the ingredients of rape are not made out, and the FIR and charge-sheet are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The sum and substance of private complaint is that respondent no.2 (complainant herein) joined as a teacher in R.C. Patel English Medium School, Holnathe, Shirpur since 1st November 2017. Complainant alleged that she had two children. According to her, accused promised to marry her and also to take all her responsibilities. In February 2020, she learnt that accused got married and therefore she filed private complaint. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, after following the initial procedure, directed City Police, Shirpur to register crime i.e. by invoking powers under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the above backdrop, accused-applicant has knocked the doors of this court praying for quashing of FIR.

Procedural History

Respondent No.2 filed private complaint No. 231 of 2020 under Section 156(3) CrPC before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur. Magistrate directed registration of FIR, leading to Crime No. 63 of 2020 at City Police Station, Shirpur. Investigation resulted in charge-sheet No. 30 of 2020, culminating in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2021 before Sessions Judge, Dhule. Applicant then filed Criminal Application No. 1387 of 2020 under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court for quashing.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 156(3)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 417, 420, 406, 375
  • Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: 3, 4
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 5, 6
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Promise to Marry Case Due to Lack of Evidence of False Promise from Inception. Court holds that breach of promise to marry without proof of initial fraudulent intent does not constitute rape under Section 375 IPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Union's Petition in Unfair Labour Practice Case — Recognized Union Not Required for Item 6 Complaint Under MRTU & PULP Act. Unrecognized Union Can Maintain Complaint Under Item 6 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of...