'No False Promise Of Marriage': Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Case Filed By Woman Against Her Fiancee And His Family Members After Wedding Was Called Off

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape case registered by a woman against her would-be husband alleging that after the betrothal ceremony on the promise of marriage the accused had forced the complainant to indulge in sexual intercourse and seven months later refused to marry.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Santosh Shetty and his family members who were charged with offences punishable under sections 376, 471, 420, 109, 504 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It said “Talks of marriage between the members of the family had also taken place, and the date of marriage is to be fixed on 08-09-2023, these happen on the day of betrothal ceremony. Therefore, one factum is clear that there was no false promise of marriage. It is a marriage that has been decided. In the considered view of the Court, it is not a false promise of marriage. It was a betrothal ceremony and ensuing was the marriage.”

Further it said “The documents appended to the charge sheet or the statements would no where drive home the point that on the evening of the day of betrothal ceremony, the 1st petitioner had indulged in such acts that would become ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC for it to become an offence under Section 376 IPC for rape.”

As per the prosecution case, Santhosh is said to be working in New Jersey, United States of America, and was looking for a girl to get married. It was stated that he posted his profile on a matrimonial website and came in contact with the 2nd respondent (complainant), talking among each other up to 07-01-2023.

On 08-01-2023, it was stated that Shetty and the complainant met at a temple in Haklady exchanged their opinions, which led to negotiations between the members of the families.

The proposal for marriage was stated to have been accepted by the family members of both the families and the engagement of the 1st petitioner and the complainant was held on 11-01-2023.

On 11-01-2023, it was submitted that the complainant asked the petitioner to transfer Rs 4 lakhs to invest in some money-earning fund, which was immediately done. 

It was stated that before flying to New Jersey, the 1st petitioner, noticing the fact that no one was in the house the accused forced the complainant to indulge in sexual intercourse, on the ground that their marriage had been agreed to be held on 08-09-2023.

Believing the words of the family members of the 1st petitioner, invitations were also printed about the marriage. For manifold reasons which are narrated in the complaint, the engagement broke and the marriage failed, leading to the present complaint.

The petitioners argued that the incident narrated in the entire complaint is highly improbable. After the engagement, it is the case of the petitioners that all the family members never went away and there was no occasion at 6.00 p.m. on that day for the 1st petitioner to take the complainant to a room and indulge in sexual intercourse.

It is the case of the 1st petitioner that throughout 7 months, the complainant went on demanding money and, therefore, the family members doubting the bona fides of the complainant decided to call off the marriage.

The decision to call off the marriage cannot amount to cheating. Spending time with the complainant along with members of the family of the complainant cannot amount to rape under Section 376 of the IPC, it was argued.

The complainant contended that the date of marriage was fixed, invitation cards were also printed. After seven months, the family members of the 1st petitioner call off the marriage. The impact upon the complainant, and the family, is so huge that it would amount to cheating.

Therefore, it is a clear case where the petitioners have lured the family of the complainant and the complainant into marriage and have cheated, breaking the engagement, it was submitted.

It was argued that on the day of engagement, noticing that no one was in the house of the complainant, the 1st petitioner has indulged in the act of sexual assault upon the complainant, that too on the promise of marriage. Therefore, it was submitted that it is a clear case where all the offences are met and the petition should be dismissed.

Findings:

The bench on going through the complaint and the chargesheet noted that it is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner travelled from Kundapur to Mumbai and Mumbai to Miami on 12-01-2023, and seven months passed by with steady communication between the two, including WhatsApp chats.

Nowhere in any WhatsApp chat even a line of narration is made by the complainant about the 1st petitioner or the complainant indulging in sexual intercourse on 11-01-2023, on the day of the betrothal ceremony at 6.00 p.m, the Court

Then it said “In the case at hand, as observed hereinabove, there was no false promise of marriage. The intention was to get married as the betrothal ceremony takes place. Therefore, it cannot be brought under the ambit of false promise of marriage.”

Further it said “The 1st petitioner also did not perform the alleged act on false promise of marriage, it is allegedly performed on the date of the betrothal ceremony. Therefore, it cannot be construed to be a false promise of marriage. It at best could be a breach of promise of marriage, which would not become an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.” The court also refused to accept the contention that consent of the complainant was taken out of deceit.

Court noted that the marriage broke not on any act of the members of the 1st petitioner's family or the complainant's family, but for manifold reasons, as averred in the petition.

It is not a case where the family of the 1st petitioner or the 1st petitioner had lured the complainant or her family members to get into the marriage. It was an agreement between both the families to perform the marriage of the 1st petitioner with the complainant, the Court held.

“Merely because the engagement breaks, at a later date cannot amount to offence of cheating against the 1st petitioner or his family members. Therefore, there is no warrant to permit the trial to continue any further, as permitting it would on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of law, resulting in patent injustice,” it concluded.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Mahesh Kiran Shetty S for Petitioners.

HCGP Thejesh P FOR R-1.

Advocate P.B Umesh FOR R-2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 257

Case Title: Santhosh Shetty & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.13912 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order