Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court dealt with a criminal revision application challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's refusal to discharge the applicant in a case registered under Sections 376 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute arose from a romantic relationship between the applicant and the complainant, who had known each other since 2012 and worked together at a hotel. The complainant alleged that the applicant promised to marry her, on which basis they had physical relations, and she conceived. She was reluctant to abort but the applicant prevailed upon her by promising marriage, and she took pills. Later, the applicant avoided her and refused to marry her. The complainant filed a written complaint on 28th December 2012, but during counselling arranged by the police, the applicant agreed to marry her in the presence of his parents, leading her to withdraw the complaint on 6th January 2013. However, within twelve days, the applicant informed the counsellor that he was disinclined to marry, citing fear of family reaction, financial constraints, and alleged threats. The complainant renewed her complaint, leading to registration of Crime No.234/2013 under Sections 376 and 420 IPC. The applicant sought discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., arguing that the material showed only a breach of promise, not a false promise, and relied on telephonic conversation transcripts and alleged horoscope mismatch. He cited Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The High Court referred to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which held that a breach of promise to marry cannot be a false promise unless the maker had no intention to uphold the promise at the time of making it. The court found that the applicant's conduct—agreeing to marry to induce withdrawal of the complaint and then resiling within twelve days—prima facie showed that he never intended to honour the promise. The court rejected the astrological incompatibility argument as a guise to avoid the promise. Applying the limited standard under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court held that the material taken at face value disclosed the ingredients of Section 376 IPC, and dismissed the revision application. The observations were expressly limited to the revision stage and were not to influence the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Discharge - Section 227 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Prima facie case - Court may sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding whether prima facie case is made out - Facts taken at face value disclosed existence of all ingredients constituting alleged offence under Section 376 IPC - Application for discharge rejected (Paras 9-10). B) Rape - False Promise to Marry - Section 375 and 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Distinction between false promise and breach of promise - To establish false promise, maker must have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it - Applicant resiled from promise within twelve days after complainant withdrew first complaint and used astrological incompatibility as guise, showing lack of intention from inception - Held that material on record suggested false promise to marry which vitiated complainant's consent (Paras 8-9). C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Sections 397 and 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - High Court in revision examined whether Additional Sessions Judge correctly declined discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. - Observations confined to revision and not to influence trial (Paras 4, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether material on record prima facie established that the applicant had no intention to marry from inception, making his promise false and thereby vitiating complainant's consent under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 so as to justify refusal of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Final Decision
The revision application was dismissed. The High Court confirmed the Additional Sessions Judge's order refusing discharge, finding prima facie material that ingredients of Section 376 IPC existed. Observations were limited to the revision and were not to influence the trial.
Law Points
- False promise to marry can vitiate consent under Section 376 IPC if maker lacked intention to honour promise at inception
- Mere breach of promise to marry is not equivalent to false promise
- Court may sift and weigh evidence at stage of framing charges under Section 227 CrPC for limited purpose of determining prima facie case
- Facts taken at face value must disclose all ingredients of offence to refuse discharge
- Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 CrPC is limited to examining prima facie material
