Case Note & Summary
The case involved a consensual relationship between the appellant and the second respondent, which lasted three years and ended with the second respondent filing a criminal complaint alleging refusal to marry after sexual exploitation. The complaint was based on an FIR registered at the Sirgitti Police Station, District Bilaspur, following the second respondent's claims. The court examined the principles established in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana regarding the necessity of proving the accused's intention to marry at the outset of the relationship. The second respondent, an engineering graduate, had engaged in a physical relationship with the appellant, which continued for three years, during which both families discussed marriage. However, the marriage proposal ultimately fell through, leading to the complaint. The court noted that the second respondent had previously agreed to marry the appellant before a counseling center but that this agreement was made under the threat of criminal prosecution and was unenforceable. The court found that the relationship was consensual, and the second respondent's consent was not obtained through coercion or misrepresentation. The court concluded that there was no criminal culpability on the part of the appellant and quashed the charges against him, allowing the appeal and rejecting any pending applications. The proceedings in the lower court were ordered to be closed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Consent and Misrepresentation - Criminal liability in consensual relationships - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 90 - The court held that consent obtained in a consensual relationship cannot be deemed coerced or misrepresented, and thus, no criminal liability can be fastened on the appellant for not marrying the second respondent after a three-year relationship. The court emphasized that the second respondent's allegations were an afterthought, as she willingly engaged in the relationship knowing the consequences. Held that the charges against the appellant were quashed (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had criminal liability for not marrying the second respondent after a consensual relationship.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the charges against the appellant, and ordered the closure of proceedings in the lower court.
Law Points
- consensual relationship
- promise to marry
- criminal liability
- misconception of fact
- Section 90 IPC
