Case Note & Summary
This judgment arose from a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the applicant, a government servant, seeking quashing of RCC No. 626 of 2020 pending before the trial court at Parbhani, which originated from FIR Crime No. 185 of 2020 registered with New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, a 30-year-old woman, alleged that she and the applicant belonged to the same caste and had known each other since 2015-2016 while preparing for competitive examinations. They developed a friendship and later a love affair, and the applicant expressed his intention to marry her to his parents and to her mother. The complainant narrated several occasions between 2018 and 2020 when they had consensual sexual intercourse, including visits to Mumbai, a lodge near Dadar Railway Station, at her house in Parbhani, and in sugarcane fields on the outskirts of Parbhani. She stated that she consented because of his assurance of marriage. In April 2020, after a phone conversation about marriage, the applicant's phone was switched off and he avoided contact; the complainant then lodged the FIR alleging that the applicant had obtained her consent under a false promise of marriage and physically and mentally exploited her. The prosecution filed a charge-sheet. The applicant contended before the High Court that the complainant was major, that the relationship was consensual and born out of a love affair, and that the allegations even taken at face value did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 375 IPC. He relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that a mere subsequent refusal to marry does not attract Section 376 IPC. The State and the complainant opposed the application, contending that consent was obtained by false promise of marriage and that the applicant never intended to marry the complainant. The court examined the FIR, charge-sheet, and the statement of the complainant recorded during medical examination, in which she described a love affair of one and a half years, a decision to marry, the use of oral contraceptive pills during sexual contact, and the applicant's later statement that he did not want to marry her. The court also noted that the statements of the complainant's brother and mother corroborated that the applicant had in April 2018 told the brother that he loved the complainant and wanted to marry her, and that in November 2019 he informed her mother that if the complainant was constantly asking for marriage and his mother was unwell, they should find a suitable bridegroom for her. These facts indicated that the applicant had genuinely intended to marry the complainant from the beginning and later changed his mind. Applying the principles in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, particularly paragraphs 18 to 20, the court held that to establish that consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry, the prosecution must show that the promise was false at the time it was made, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to, and that the false promise had a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. The court found no such false promise at inception in the present case. It concluded that the uncontroverted allegations did not make out the offence under Section 376 IPC. Accordingly, the court allowed the criminal application and quashed RCC No. 626 of 2020 pending before the trial court at Parbhani, arising out of Crime No. 185 of 2020. The decision primarily favored the accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape and Consent - Section 375, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Consent obtained by false promise of marriage vitiates consent only when promise was false from inception, made in bad faith with no intention to adhere and directly linked to woman's decision to engage in sexual act. In this case, FIR and charge-sheet showed a long-standing consensual relationship between the accused and complainant from 2015-2016, mutual intention to marry, the accused informing his parents and asking the complainant's mother for her hand in 2019, and only later changing his mind. The court held that the uncontroverted allegations did not make out offence under Section 376 IPC as the promise was not shown to be false at inception; mere subsequent refusal to marry did not vitiate consent (Paras 8-11). B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR/Proceedings - Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice - Where the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet, taken at face value, do not constitute the offence alleged, the High Court may quash the proceedings. The court relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar and Sonu alias Subhash Kumar to hold that the applicant's case fell within the parameters for quashing; therefore the criminal application was allowed and RCC No. 626 of 2020 was quashed (Paras 5, 8-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet make out offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code when the physical relations were consensual and the accused subsequently resiled from the promise of marriage; and whether the proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Final Decision
The criminal application was allowed and RCC No. 626 of 2020 pending before the trial Court at Parbhani, arising out of Crime No. 185 of 2020 registered with New Mondha Police Station for offence under Section 376 IPC, was quashed.
Law Points
- Consent under Section 375 IPC must involve active and reasoned deliberation
- false promise of marriage vitiates consent only if false at inception with no intention to adhere and direct nexus to sexual act
- mere subsequent refusal to marry does not constitute rape under Section 376 IPC
- uncontroverted allegations not making out offence warrant quashing under Section 482 CrPC
