When Woman Makes Reasoned Choice To Establish Physical Relations, Consent Can't Be Said To Be Based On Misconception Of Fact: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations, the consent cannot be said to based on misconception of fact unless there is clear evidence that a false promise was given.Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in a...
The Delhi High Court has observed that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations, the consent cannot be said to based on misconception of fact unless there is clear evidence that a false promise was given.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the promise must be of immediate relevance and bear a direct nexus to a decision by the woman to engage in a sexual act.
“It is pertinent to observe that whensoever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations after fully understanding the consequences of such action, the 'consent' cannot be said to be based on misconception of fact until and unless there is a clear evidence that a false promise with no intention of upholding the same was given by the maker at the time of making the promise,” the court said.
Justice Mendiratta made the observations while quashing a rape case filed by a woman alleging that the accused repeatedly established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and later, expressed his inability to do so.
The court was informed that the accused and the complainant mutually agreed to marry each other and did court marriage.
The complainant told court that she has been living happily with the man and did not wish to proceed with the FIR which was registered under misconception since there was reluctance on the accused's part for marriage due to resistance from is family.
“Given the nature of relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.2, it does not appear that any such alleged promise was in bad faith or to deceive respondent no.2 but for the subsequent developments in the family of the petitioner,” the court said.
Noting that within a short period during the process of investigation itself, the accused voluntarily married the complainant, the court ordered:
“In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be construed that the promise made by the petitioner initially was with an intention to not fulfill the same. It cannot be ignored that quashing of proceedings shall result in better harmony in the matrimonial relationship between the parties, rather than continuing with the proceedings under Section 376 IPC. Also, the chances of any conviction in proceedings/trial are remote and bleak in view of settlement between the parties.”
Title: I S v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 413