Long-Term Consensual Love Affair Which Did Not Culminate In Marriage Doesn't Entitle Girl To File Rape Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court recently iterated that sexual acts during the course of a long-term relationship cannot be equated with physical relations occurring on the false pretext of marriage, merely because the lovers got separated later. The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi explained that there are relationships between young boys and girls, accompanied with...
Madhya Pradesh High Court recently iterated that sexual acts during the course of a long-term relationship cannot be equated with physical relations occurring on the false pretext of marriage, merely because the lovers got separated later.
The single judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi explained that there are relationships between young boys and girls, accompanied with physical relations, that couldn't culminate in marriage years later; this in itself cannot be a ground to say that the accused failed to fulfill his promise to marry the prosecutrix. In such instances, the consent given by the prosecutrix for physical relations can't be said as obtained by a misconception of fact.
“Needless to say, in the young age when a boy and a girl attracts towards each other and they flow in emotions and believe that they love each other, normally they carry impression that their relationship will naturally be led to marriage. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her”, the court laid down in clear terms.
Reasoning as above, the bench sitting at Jabalpur quashed the FIR and final chargesheet filed against the petitioner/accused, who is a doctor, at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Katni for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 and 366 of the IPC. The court also commented about the improbability that the prosecutrix failed all throughout the 10-year-time period of their relationship to realize that she was being exploited via continuous physical relations.
“…it is evidently clear that in 2010 when incident occurred for the first time, the prosecutrix got cause of action to register an FIR as, according to her, physical relation was developed by the petitioner despite her resistance on the pretext of marriage and that relationship continued till 2020…”, the court remarked that no FIR was lodged by the Prosecutrix until the petitioner refused to marry her.
The court opined that it is difficult to hold the physical relations during a 10-year-old relationship as rape, considering the allegations levelled by prosecutrix.
According to the complainant, she and the petitioner belonged to the same caste and came from the same village. They have known each other for over a decade since they were school students. Since June 2010, they had a love affair involving physical relations. Till 2020, the petitioner and the prosecutrix periodically spent time together in the former's Doctor's Quarters in Katni. Afterwards, the petitioner refused to marry her at the end of their relationship, stated the complainant/prosecutrix.
The Court reproduced excerpts from several case laws such as Maheshwar Tigga v. The State Of Jharkhand (2020) and Madhur Baghrecha v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) to hold that there was no 'misconception of fact' as to the promise of marriage in the instant case.
“….the Supreme Court has very specifically observed that there must be adequate evidence to show that at the relevant time i.e. at the initial stage itself, the accused had no intention whatsoever, of keeping his promise to marry the victim. There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances…”, the court clarified with regard to the apex court's decision in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675.
In Deepak Gulati, the apex court categorically stated that “a failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date”, due to reasons that can't be ascertained from the available evidence is not necessarily misconception of fact. The apex court then built on its previous observation to add that a fact must have immediate relevance for it to count as a 'misconception of fact'.
Before passing the orders, the High Court had called both parties and their parents to see if both were ready to get married. However, the parties were not able to reach a consensus. Afterwards, the court elucidated that the current case doesn't fall within the ambit of Section 375 IPC since it was a consensual relationship between the parties.
Case No: Criminal Revision No. 3086 of 2022
Citation: 2024 Live Law (MP) 150