Rape On False Promise To Marry | Factors Like Age, Education, Profession Of Both Complainant & Accused Relevant: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that while adjudicating a rape case based on false promise to marry, the Court should take into accounts factors like comparative age of accused and victim, their educational, social and economic background and the nature of their profession.

The list is not exhaustive and Court said entirety of facts and circumstances of each case will have to be considered.

The observation was made while setting aside trial court order framing rape charges against the Petitioner, a married man, on the complaint filed by a woman with whom he was involved in a physical relationship. The woman was also married and had children.

Justice Sumeet Goel noted that the Petitioner was aged more than 50 years and was a serving CRPF officer. The complainant was also aged more than 50 years and worked in a private company. In this backdrop it observed,

"Both of them despite being of mature age, being married to their respective spouse, having adult children, decided to be in relationship on their own quixotic notions...The parties were in a relationship for about 5½ years...Complainant herself is a lady of advanced age of 51 years at the time of lodging of the present FIR. In these circumstances it cannot be legally and validly construed that there was any alleged promise to marry on part of the petitioner, which made the complainant vary her stand and communicate her consent to make physical relations with the petitioner."

The case also prompted the Court to observe,

"Case pertaining to rape, based upon promise to marry and/or involving extra marital relationship (wherein the man or woman or both are married to other persons), the Court ought to take into account the entirety of facts/circumstances of such case, including but not limited to, comparative age of accused and victim; educational, social and economic background of the accused and the victim; the nature of professional work/avocation being undertaken by accused and victim in their respective lives etc."

The Court also summarised the following principles:

I. The Consent of a woman; in context of Section 375 of IPC, 1860; must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act.

II. For a court to hold that the “Consent” of a woman was marred by 'misconception of fact' on account of a promise to marry; it must emerge from the factual conception of a given case that, firstly such promise was false from inception itself with no intention to upkeep it and secondly, such false promise must be of immediate relevance in terms of time or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in physical relation(s).

The Court said complainant's conduct indicated that her engagement with Petitioner was by wilful exercise of choice, without their being any element of force involved. It also noted that in her statement under Section 161 CrPC, it is not mentioned that her consent to be in physical relationship with the petitioner had any proximity with alleged promise to marry.

"It is a matter of common knowledge, judicial notice whereof can be taken, that the parties in the course of taking criminal action(s) against each other, in order to vent their ire, often tend to exaggerate the allegations so as to add severity thereto," Court said while quashing charges under Sections 323/406/506 IPC.

Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate with Ms. Bhawna Thakur and Mr. Tanuj Goyal Tohana, Advocates for the petitioner.

Ms. Mahima Yashpal, DAG, Haryana.

Ms. Ritu Singh Mann, Advocate and Mr. Jannat Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 XXXX v. XXXX [CRR-1844-2022]