Consent For Sexual Act Obtained By Making False Promise Of Reemployment Isn't 'Free Consent': Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that getting the consent of the prosecutrix to involve in a sexual act, by making false promise of re-employment, can't be called 'free consent' and it would amount to consent obtained under a misconception of fact (as per Section 90 of IPC). The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia observed thus as it refused to quash an FIR registered for...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that getting the consent of the prosecutrix to involve in a sexual act, by making false promise of re-employment, can't be called 'free consent' and it would amount to consent obtained under a misconception of fact (as per Section 90 of IPC).
The Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia observed thus as it refused to quash an FIR registered for the offence of Rape against the Director of a hospital by the receptionist of the hospital (victim).
The facts in brief
It was alleged by the victim that she was given an appointment on the post of Receptionist of the hospital by the director/applicant/accused of the hospital, and thereafter he had violated her sexually on multiple occasions.
She alleged that on the pretext of giving job, the applicant had violated her sexually on multiple occasions and also started pressurizing that the prosecutrix must indulge in sex with other persons and when the prosecutrix did not agree for indulging in sex with other persons, then her services were terminated.
Thereafter, she alleged, that on the pretext of reinstatement, the applicant had sexually violated her on a number of occasion, however, she was not given the job.
Consequently, she got registered an FIR against him Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 294, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1) (w) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Court's observations
At the outset, the Court observed that if the prosecutrix did not make any complaint with regard to her sexual violation, then it cannot be said that the prosecutrix had indulged in a sexual act voluntarily.
"…because she was an employee of the applicant and the applicant was in a position to dominate her wishes," the Court reasoned further.
Further, taking into account the allegation that the applicant had allured her of giving her job back and under the hope and belief that she would again get a job in the hospital, she continued to have sexual relationship with the applicant, the court observed thus:
"…by giving her an assurance that she would be reemployed by the applicant in his hospital, if he succeeded in getting the consent of the prosecutrix to involve in the sexual act, then such consent cannot be said to be a free consent and it was certainly obtained by making false promise reemployment and thus, in the light of Section 90 of IPC, it can be said that the said consent was obtained under a misconception of fact."
Under these circumstances, the court concluded that no case was made out for quashing of FIR in the present case and his 482 CrPC application was dismissed.
Case title - Rajkishore Shrivastava vs. State of MP and another
Read Order