Rape On False Promise To Marry- Married, Educated Woman Supposed To Be Well Aware Of Consequences Of Sexual Intercourse Prior To Marriage: Rajasthan HC

The court opined that the consent of a woman under Section 375 of IPC can be held vitiated only on the ground of misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis of her surrender for establishing physical relationship. The court further opined that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it, added the court.

Justice Farjand Ali, observed,

"When a woman is married and educated, then, depending on facts of each case, she is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage. In the event of a consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There must be some material on record to hold prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was in agreement to have sexual intercourse with him"

The court also opined that in rape cases, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without consent of the woman/lady. However, the court added that the consent obtained by fraud amounts to no consent and therefore, if the intercourse is done with consent but obtained by fraud, it would amount to rape.

It was remarked,

"If an illiterate woman is given promise to marry and under that promise, her consent is obtained for sexual intercourse, then, it can be said that the consent is obtained by fraud. Here, in this case, the prosecutrix is an educated lady and serving as a lady jail guard. Another instance would be that if consent is obtained by hiding the identity or impersonation, then it is a fraud. If a married man obtains consent of an unmarried girl under the false pretext that he will marry her by concealing the fact of his previous marriage, then the consent given by the young girl shall be construed to be a consent obtained fraudulently and thus it is no consent. Here, in this matter, both the parties are not previously married."

The court examined that there is not an iota of evidence or whisper regarding the fact that right from the inception, the accused was having a dishonest intention; rather in juxtaposition, the facts reveal that there was a consensual sexual relationship between the parties and thus, no offence as alleged in the FIR is made out for which the petitioner can be forced to face the rigor of a trial.

Placing reliance on Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the court deemed appropriate to allow the criminal misc. petitions and to quash the proceedings that arose out of the FIR impugned. In both the cases, the Apex court has discussed the scope of powers of the High Court to quash FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in detail and has determined such instances where FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings can be quashed.

The court ordered,

"Accordingly, the criminal misc. petitions are allowed. The FIR No. 36/2020 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Distt. Alwar for the offences under Sections 376-D, 418 and 506 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned SHO is directed to prepare a closure report of the case and to submit the same before the learned Magistrate concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order."

Further, the court observed that there is no mention in the FIR as to what point of time the accused refused to marry with the petitioner and in 2018, when the cause of action had arisen, the prosecutrix refused to sue the petitioner; rather, on the contrary, even thereafter she continued her relations with the petitioner. The court found no video clip or other material has been collected or produced by which inference of threat can be drawn. Keeping mum for long in reporting the matter also creates serious doubts in the story, opined the court.

The court also observed that this is an unfortunate but routine case of a boy and a girl having an affair, indulging into a sexual relationship and ultimately ending into a breakup. The court added that present is one of such cases where the parties had consensual sexual relationship and were in love with each other, however, the relationship become sour by the lapse of time.

On perusal of statements and reports, the court found no offence under Section 375 IPC. The messages exchanged between the parties also suggest that at least no offence, as alleged, can be brought under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC, added the court. The court opined that the excuses taken regarding consent given under misconception are prima facie appears to be flimsy and unconvincing.

Facts

In this matter, the prosecutrix is a Jail guard at Central Jail, Bikaner and in 2018, she rented premises at Jaipur for exam coaching. One Dinesh Meena told her that a boy named Radha Kishan Meena-petitioner is serving in the Department of Customs at Gujarat and would be a suitable groom for her. The accused allegedly coaxed her to marry him, for which she consented. It is alleged that on 18.4.2018, the petitioner called her to meet, upon which they both met and she sat as a pillion rider on the motorcycle driven by the petitioner.

It is alleged that she wanted to go to Jodhpur for a physical examination related to the recruitment process and for that purpose she asked the petitioner to drop her at Rajgarh Railway Station, but the accused took her to the residence of a relative of the accused petitioner. As per allegations, the prosecutrix was induced by the accused to develop physical relations and she surrendered herself before him on account of promise to marry her.

It is further alleged that thereafter on several occasions, sexual intercourse was committed upon her at different places and lastly when she made a protest, she was threatened that an obscene video has been made with the petitioner in a compromising situation and if any report is moved, he will make the video viral in order to disrepute her in the society. It is alleged that she was seduced by the petitioner on the false pretext that he will marry her. On the basis of the said report, the afore-mentioned FIR got registered and investigation in the matter is underway.

Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations as leveled in the FIR are taken on their face value or in their entirety, no case of rape as defined under Section 375 and 376 IPC is made out since the complainant is a grown up lady, aged of 24 years and a literate one, who is serving as a constable and knows her good and bad pretty well. If as per allegations, she submitted herself before the accused petitioner, then it could be presumed that it was a consensual sexual relationship between two major persons and the same would not fall under the penal provisions of Section 376 IPC. Thus, he prayed for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings pending against the petitioner.

The Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that there are no grounds for quashing the FIR. From the bare perusal of FIR, commission of cognizable offence is disclosed which requires investigation. It is submitted that at the stage of quashing of FIR, the appreciation of evidence is not required to be made nor the High Court is supposed to make an enquiry to ascertain the reliability or genuineness of the case as alleged in the FIR. It was submitted that it is a clear case of seducement on account of false promise to marry the young girl, therefore, jointly prayed for dismissal of the petitions.

Adv. Mohit Balwada with Adv.Asha Sharma & Adv. Gayatri appeared for the petitioner while Adv. Anshuman Saxena and Adv. Ramesh Chaudhary, PP appeared for the respondents.

Case Title: Radhakrishan Meena v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78

Click Here To Read/ Download Order