Prosecutrix Indulged In Sexual Relations With Two Persons In Same Year On Alleged Promise Of Marriage: J&K High Court Quashes Rape FIRs

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recently quashed two FIRs lodged by the same woman against two men, alleging rape on the pretext of false promise to marry.

From the facts and material produced before the Court, Justice Rajnesh Oswal found that the prosecutrix had indulged in sexual relationship with two persons on the promise of marriage in the year 2018.

"This Court has no hesitation to hold that from the conduct of the respondent No. 2, it is evident that a false and frivolous F.I.Rs have been lodged by respondent No. 2 against both the petitioners," it thus held.

The Court further opined that when there is allegation that the sexual relationships were made on the basis of false promise of marriage, then it has to be established that promise of marriage was a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given.

Background

The Court was hearing petitions filed by the accused, seeking quashing of FIRs. Both the Petitioners-accused claimed that the FIRs were a tactic to harass and blackmail them into marrying the prosecutrix. They denied having made any promises of marriage as alleged.

It was also highlighted that in one of the FIRs prosecutirx claimed to be a "rustic villager" whereas in the other she claimed to be pursuing higher studies.

Findings

Noting that the prosecutrix has been changing her stands time and again, similarity of allegations in both FIRs sans mention of date and place of occurrence, the Court quashed the FIRs dubbing them as "false and frivolous".

It referred to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court had held that,

"The allegations in the F.I.R. do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations based on this promise. There is no allegation in the F.I.R. that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfill his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false. "

Case Title: Suresh Kumar & Anr v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr.

Appearance: Advocates Jagpaal Singh & Vikas Sharma for Petitioner; AAG Aseem Sawhney for State

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order