Andhra Pradesh High Court Declines To Quash Case Against Man Accused Of Cheating, Raping Woman On 'False Promise' Of Marriage
While declining to quash a case involving allegations of rape and cheating under the guise of "false promise" of marriage, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that whether the relationship was consensual or the woman's consent was based on a misconception of fact can be decided only after recording of evidence. It further noted certain factual questions in the case, which it said that were key...
While declining to quash a case involving allegations of rape and cheating under the guise of "false promise" of marriage, the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that whether the relationship was consensual or the woman's consent was based on a misconception of fact can be decided only after recording of evidence.
It further noted certain factual questions in the case, which it said that were key to decide the offences of rape and cheating as alleged in the case before it.
A single judge bench of Justice BVLN Chakravarthi in its order said, “The factual question which would arise is whether the petitioner refused to marry the victim without any valid reason or whether there are any bona-fide reasons for the petitioner to commit breach of promise, due to subsequent events? This fact is very important to conclude whether the petitioner had malafide intention from the inception? If so, whether he made the promise to marry only to have sexual relationship with the victim? These factual issues will play a vital role to decide the offence U/s.376 I.P.C. or 420 I.P.C."
"The question is whether consent given by the prosecutrix was a misconception of fact, or the relationship was consensual be decided only after recording evidence, when the material prima facie show that the alleged consent was obtained by a misconception of fact arising out of a false promise to marry," it added.
Background
The order was passed in a plea challenging a case registered against the petitioner under IPC sections 376(rape), 417(Punishment for cheating), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 354 (D) (Stalking).
The petitioner and complainant were both medical students in a college wherein the petitioner was the complainant's senior. The complainant woman alleged that the petitioner "was after her", stating that he loves her and intend to marry her. She claimed that in July 2021, she visited his flat where he sexually assaulted her on the pretext of marriage. The relationship continued with the petitioner repeatedly promising to marry the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioner allegedly stopped taking the complainant's phone calls and started avoiding her and when she asked him about marriage he said that he will not marry her.
The woman thereafter approached the police. Later, the police report (charge sheet) was presented before Judicial Magistrate of First Class. The magistrate's court took cognizance and registered the case. Against this the petitioner approached the high court seeking quashing of proceedings.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the relationship was consensual, and the complainant, being an adult medical student, was aware of the consequences. It was contended that subsequent unforeseen circumstances, which were beyond the petitioner's control, led to the breakup, and it was not a case of cheating or rape.
Conversely, the complainant's counsel argued that the consent was obtained under a misconception of fact due to the false promise of marriage and not based on her free will. It was contended that when the complainant visited the petitioner's flat, he "sexually assaulted her" on the promise of marriage, and thus it cannot be treated as her voluntary consent. It was argued that the complainant was "forced to submit herself" to the petitioner on the pretext of marriage and she was made to remain silent due to such promise. It was emphasized that the petitioner's refusal to marry without valid reasons indicated his lack of intention to marry the complainant from the beginning.
Findings
The court noted that in the FIR as well in the statement of the complainant, the woman had categorically stated that the alleged incident happened in the flat of the petitioner in the month of July, 2021 which was against her will and she remained silent "on account of promise to marry".
It however said, "There is no material is available before this Court to presume that subsequently they continued sexual relationship". Taking note of the contentions the high court said that "recording of the evidence" is necessary to answer the "disputed facts and defence pleas".
Before parting the high court said, "At this juncture, it is pertinent to note down that the Parliament included a Section in BNS, 2023 to deal with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means. Section 69 of BNS 2023, deal with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, which are on raise and affecting the society".
Finding it not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings, the high court dismissed the man's plea.
Case title: X v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
Counsel for petitioner: Advocate P L Narasimha Rao
Counsel for the State: APP Sri A.Sai Rohith
Counsel for Complainant: Advocate Ramakrishna Akurathi