'Not A Case Of False Promise Of Marriage': Gujarat High Court Quashes Second Rape Case Against Man

The Gujarat High Court recently quashed a rape case against a man, observing that the case is of consensual sex.

The court said that the complainant was well aware of the pros and cons of the relationship and that no false promise of marriage was given at the early stage. 

Justice Gita Gopi said, “At the inception of relation, there would not have been any promise to marry, for the complainant to give consent for physical relation on the basis of promise. It is not the case that, but for the false promise by the accused to marry, the complainant had given the consent to have physical relation.”

“The complainant was very well knowing the pros and cons of the relation. It is not the case that false promise of marriage was given at the early stage, the complainant was aware of the nature and consequence of sexual indulgence. After having relation with the accused applicant for considerable long time, the complainant’s husband gave divorce to her,” Justice Gopi added.

The court said the woman thereafter too continued with her relationship with the accused probably with the hope of a marriage. "The FIR was quashed, which was on the consent of the complainant and while withdrawing the charges, the complainant had not secured any assurance of marriage, to presume that there was any false promise of marriage thereafter to give rise for a cause to lodge an FIR for the offence of rape,” Justice Gopi finally added, while referring to an earlier FIR filed by the woman.

According to the complainant's written statement, the accused initiated contact through Facebook and professed his love for her. They exchanged mobile numbers and continued their communication on WhatsApp. The complainant alleged that the accused deceived her under the guise of love and intimacy, leading her to enter into a physical relationship, believing that he would marry her.

She further claimed that they traveled to various locations, stayed in hotels together, and even introduced her as his wife. The complainant, a mother of two, stated that the accused informed her husband about their relationship, which eventually resulted in a divorce. Despite this, the complainant continued the relationship, and the accused allegedly promised marriage for four years before reneging on his commitment.

Moreover, the complainant asserted that the accused took a hefty sum of money from her on multiple occasions, however, when she realized his true intentions, she initially filed an FIR against him, which was later quashed with her consent after the accused promised to marry her. However, the complainant subsequently filed another FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

During the court proceedings, Advocate A.B. Desai, representing the accused, contended that the earlier FIR had been quashed with the complainant's consent, and the subsequent filing of an FIR with similar allegations was an abuse of the legal process.

He argued that no offense of rape was made out, as there was no mention of a promise to marry in the complainant's affidavit during the quashing proceedings.

Desai further stated that none of the allegations in the FIR were included in the charge sheet, and no witness statements supported the complainant's claims. He asserted that the complainant had falsely implicated the accused with malicious intent and ulterior motives.

On the other hand, Advocate Divyang Ramani, representing the complainant, argued that the accused should face trial to provide an opportunity for the complainant to produce evidence supporting her case.

He claimed that the complainant had consented to quashing the earlier FIR based on the accused's assurance of marriage. Ramani alleged that the accused had no intention from the beginning to marry the complainant and had continued the sexual relationship under false pretences.

The court said that in order to establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention to fulfil it at the time of giving it. The court noted that the complainant, even during her marriage, was involved in a relationship with the accused and engaged in physical relations with him.

The court further observed that since the complainant was already married, she would not have intended to marry the accused, nor could the accused have made any promise of marriage to her. The court termed the relationship between the complainant and the accused, which took place during the existence of her marriage, as an "extramarital relation."

The court also made note of the fact that the complainant, of her own volition, had traveled with the accused to different places during the subsistence of her marriage and had engaged in sexual relations with him. Based on these facts, the court held that no case was made out against the accused, and there were insufficient grounds to pursue the charges.

“There is no ground to even assume that the applicant-accused has committed the offence to consider the culpable mentality of the accused. The case is of consensual sex,” the court said, while allowing the petition

Consequently, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quashed and set aside, and the applicant was ordered to be discharged in connection with the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Title: Rohit Dinanath Ray Versus State Of Gujarat R/Criminal Revision Application No. 434 Of 2021

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 118

Appearance: Mr Ashish B Desai(5163) For The Applicant(S) No. 1 Mr Divyang A Ramani(7180) For The Respondent(S) No. 2

Ms Jirga Jhaveri, Additional Public Prosecutor For The Respondent(S) No. 1

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment