Misconceived Consent Obtained On False Promise Of Marriage Constitutes Rape Under IPC: J&K High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
21 Dec 2024 5:30 PM IST
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated the legal principle that a promise to marry made with no intention of fulfillment, which induces consent for sexual intercourse, amounts to consent obtained under a misconception of fact. Such consent, the Court emphasised, cannot be excused under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and can lead to a conviction for rape under Sections 375 and 376 IPC.
Dismissing a plea by one accused Sat Paul, seeking quashing of the FIR filed against him for alleged offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) IPC Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,
“.. whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under misconception of fact depends on the facts of each case and in considering the question of consent, the Court is bound to consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances before reaching a conclusion… Thus, under these circumstances, at the threshold stage, it cannot be decided by this Court, in exercise of inherent power, as to whether the consent was given voluntarily”
These observations came in a case originating from allegations by Shamo Devi, who accused Sat Paul of exploiting her trust and emotions. According to the complainant, the petitioner approached her in 2016 and consistently assured her of marriage, which led to a physical relationship. Over the years, he allegedly reiterated his promise but ultimately married another woman.
She further alleged that the petitioner coerced her into terminating a pregnancy that resulted from their relationship. When his promises of marriage remained unfulfilled, she filed a complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR after judicial directions.
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR on the grounds that the relationship was consensual and did not amount to rape. The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate P.N. Raina, argued that the relationship was consensual and based on mutual understanding. He contended that a mere breach of promise does not constitute rape unless it is proven that there was a fraudulent intention from the beginning.
Justice Wani examined the legal framework under Sections 375 and 90 IPC, emphasising the distinction between valid consent and consent obtained under deception.
Citing judgments such as Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Court noted that “consent” in the context of sexual relations must be unequivocal and based on informed understanding. If consent is obtained under a false promise, particularly one involving marriage, it constitutes a misconception of fact, rendering the consent invalid, the bench underlined.
The Court observed that the allegations in the FIR, if proven, establish that the petitioner engaged in a deliberate and systematic pattern of deceit. It further held that such actions fall squarely within the ambit of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC. Justice Wani emphasized that it is the intent of the accused at the inception of the relationship that is crucial in determining whether a false promise of marriage was made.
“Perusal of the CD file produced by the counsel for the official respondents reveals that the Investigating Officer has gathered evidence, pointing to the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence of rape covered in the FIR. Besides above position obtaining in the matter, a plain reading of the FIR manifestly demonstrates and discloses commission of alleged offences by the petitioner herein”, the court recorded.
Citing Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, which differentiates between a mere breach of promise and a false promise made with fraudulent intent the Court held that the petitioner's conduct aligned with the latter, as the evidence suggested that he had no genuine intention of marrying the complainant.
Observing that the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting a full investigation and trial Justice Wani stressed that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.
Preemptively quashing the FIR would impede the complainant's access to justice and undermine the investigative process, the court concluded and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Sat Paul Vs UT Of J&K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 343
