'No Promise To Marry When Relations Started, She Was Already Married' : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

The Supreme Court recently quashed a criminal case against a man accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage, after noting that when the relationship started, the woman was already married and that there was no promise to marry.

The Bench Comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal overturned the High Court's decision which had refused to quash the criminal case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegations

The complainant's case was that the appellant/accused on the false pretext of marrying her had repeated sexual intercourse with her. It was contended by the complainant that she had fallen into the trap of the appellant/accused after the accused promised to marry her and take care of her child if the complainant divorced her husband.

On the assurance of the accused, the complainant divorced her husband while marrying him in the temple in 2019 and started living as a husband and wife.

However, the appellant had gone away from the complainant for business-related work, started ignoring the calls of the complainant, and refused to stay with her.  On that basis, the complainant registered an FIR against the appellant/accused under Sections 376(2)(n) (Punishment for committing rape repeatedly on the same woman) and 506 (Punishment for Criminal Intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Supreme Court's Observation

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant/accused that the mis-statement by the complainant is evident from the fact that she claimed to have got divorced from the earlier marriage on 10.12. 2018 and married with the appellant in a temple in January 2019 but it is belied from the fact that the decree of divorce from the earlier marriage of the complainant was passed only on 13.01.2021. There was no question of any marriage prior thereto. The initiation of proceedings against the appellant being an abuse of process of law deserves to be quashed.

Agreeing with the submission made by the appellant/accused, the Supreme Court found that the complainant had falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place on 10.12.2018, as the decree of divorce was passed only on 13.01.2021.

“From the contents of the complaint, on the basis of which FIR was got registered and the statement got recorded by the complainant, it is evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married. She falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place on 10.12.2018. However, the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed only on 13.01.2021.”, the court said.

“It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband. It is the admitted case of the prosecutrix that even after the appellant shifted to Maharashtra for his job, he used to come and stay with the family and they were living as husband and wife. It was also the stand taken by the appellant that he had advanced loan of ₹1,00,000/- to the prosecutrix through banking channel which was not returned back.”, the court added.

“Similar issue was considered by this Court in Naim Ahamed v. State of NCT of Delhi on almost identical facts where the prosecutrix herself was already a married woman having three children. The complaint of alleged rape on false promise of marriage was made five years after they had started having relations. She even got pregnant from the loins of the accused. Therein she got divorce from her existing marriage much after the relations between the parties started. This Court found that there cannot be any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under misconception. The accused was not held to be guilty.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal stated while endorsing Naim Ahamed's case which squarely covers the facts of the present case.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside, the pending criminal case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC stands to be quashed.

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. D.S. Parmar, AAG Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Santosh Narayan Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Faisal, AOR

Case Title: XXXX VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3431 OF 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 207

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment