[False Promise To Marry] Bombay High Court Discharges Man in Rape Case, Says He Was Ready To Marry But Couldn't Due To Disapproval Of Parents

The Bombay High Court recently discharged a man accused of rape by false promise to marry observing that offence was not made out as he had been ready to marry the complainant but couldn't due to the disapproval of his parents, a circumstance beyond his control.

Justice MW Chandwani of the Nagpur Bench found no material to indicate that the accused didn't intend to marry the complainant from the beginning.

“It is clear from the allegations in the F.I.R. that it is the applicant, who was ready to marry. Merely because he resiled from his promise to marry, since his parents were not agreeable to their marriage, it cannot be said that the applicant committed the offence punishable under Section 375 of I.P.C.”, the court held.

The court said that at most, this was a case of non-fulfilment or a breach of promise due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the accused as his parents refused.

The court was dealing with the man's application seeking quashing of the case against him for alleged offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the IPC.

The complainant alleged that the accused, known to her through her sister, proposed marriage and engaged in physical relations with her. The complaint outlined instances of these relations occurring at various locations, including the house of the accused and a hotel. The complainant filed a complaint after discovering that the accused had gotten engaged to another woman.

When the police called him, he informed them that he was ready to marry her, but his parents did not agreeing. The complainant went to meet his father, however, his father refused to agree to their marriage. Therefore she lodged the FIR, and a chargesheet was filed after the investigation.

The Sessions Court rejected the application of the accused for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, leading him to seek relief from the High Court.

Advocate J.M. Gandhi for the accused argued that the physical relations were consensual, arising from a love affair, and pointed to WhatsApp chats supporting the applicant's contention. He emphasized that the complainant continued the relationship even after the promise of marriage fell through.

Additional Public Prosecutor SA Ashirgade submitted that the complainant's consent was obtained under a false promise, and the accused had no intention to marry her.

The court observed that the complainant, aged 33, and the accused shared a friendly relationship before it evolved into a love affair around 2016. The charge-sheet indicated numerous occasions of physical intimacy, allegedly under the pretext of marriage. However, the court opined that the complainant was conscious of the consequences, and her consent for these encounters wasn't solely rooted in the promise of marriage.

The court emphasized the distinction between a false promise and a breach of promise to marry. Citing Apex Court judgments in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, the court underscored the requirement of adequate evidence demonstrating the accused's lack of intention to marry from the beginning.

The court said that the WhatsApp conversations show the initial willingness of the accused to marry the complainant and her refusal to marry him. However, when the accused got engaged to someone else, she filed the complaint, the court noted.

The court held that no offence was made out against the accused, and continuing proceedings against him would constitute abuse of legal process.

It concluded that the case fell within the guidelines for quashing proceedings laid down in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal. Thus, the court quashed the impugned order of the sessions court and discharged the applicant from the case.

Case no. – Criminal Application [APL] No. 45 of 2023