Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Adithya Krishnan, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of Special Case No. 441 of 2024 pending before the Special Sessions Court, Shivaji Nagar, Pune, arising out of FIR No. 135 of 2024 registered at Kondhwa Police Station, Pune, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape by a person in a position of authority or trust) and 420 (cheating) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The respondent No. 2 (name withheld as XYZ) alleged that the petitioner, a co-worker, developed a relationship with her, proposed marriage, and on the assurance of marriage, established a sexual relationship despite her resistance. The petitioner's parents were aware of her Scheduled Caste status. An engagement ceremony was performed, and the respondent's parents bore the expenses and gave cash and gifts. The petitioner and his parents allegedly made dowry demands, including expensive sarees, gold, and cash. When the respondent could not fulfill these demands, the petitioner called off the marriage. The respondent filed the FIR alleging rape on the false promise of marriage and cheating. The petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual and that he had intended to marry but called it off due to quarrels. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the investigation revealed a prima facie case. The court, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, held that the sexual relationship was based on the petitioner's promise to marry, and from the outset, the petitioner had no intention to marry, as evidenced by the dowry demands and the subsequent refusal. The court distinguished between a mere breach of promise and a false promise, finding that the petitioner's conduct amounted to constructive cheating. The court also noted that the WhatsApp chats showed the respondent's desperation to convince the petitioner to marry, supporting her version. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court held that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not valid consent under Section 90 IPC, and the offence of rape is made out. The court further held that at the stage of quashing, it cannot conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence to determine the petitioner's intent; only the averments in the FIR are to be considered. Since the FIR prima facie disclosed the alleged offences, the petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - False Promise to Marry - Sections 375, 376(2)(n), 90 IPC - Consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not valid consent and amounts to rape - The court held that where the accused had no intention to marry from the outset and the sexual relationship was based on a promise of marriage, the consent is vitiated and the offence of rape is made out (Paras 7-10). B) Criminal Law - Cheating - Constructive Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Dowry demands and subsequent refusal to marry amounts to constructive cheating - The court held that the petitioner's demand for dowry and calling off the marriage on non-fulfillment of such demands constitutes cheating, as the promise to marry was false from the beginning (Paras 7-9). C) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Prima Facie Case - Mini Trial - The court held that at the stage of quashing, it cannot conduct a mini trial or appreciate evidence to determine the intent of the accused; only the averments in the FIR are to be considered to see if a prima facie case is disclosed (Para 8). D) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Offence under Section 3(2)(v) - Caste-based discrimination - The court noted that the petitioner and his parents were aware of the respondent's caste and made derogatory remarks, and the refusal to marry was linked to her caste, thus prima facie attracting the provisions of the Act (Paras 2.3, 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and charge sheet disclose a prima facie case for the offences alleged, and whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground that the relationship was consensual and the promise to marry was genuine.
Final Decision
The Criminal Writ Petition is dismissed. The court refused to quash Special Case No. 441 of 2024 pending before the Special Sessions Court, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.
Law Points
- Consent obtained on false promise of marriage is not valid consent
- Constructive cheating by making dowry demands
- Prima facie case cannot be quashed by conducting mini trial
- Offence under SC/ST Act if caste-based discrimination is alleged
