No Allegation That Promise To Marry Was False At The Inception: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging rape observing that there is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given by the accused was false at the inception.

The accused, whose petition seeking quashing of FIR was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, had approached the Apex Court contending that a bare reading of the FIR as well as the statement under Section 164 of CrPC would indicate that there was absolutely no intent on his part, when he entered upon the relationship, not to marry the prosecuterix nor can it be even suggested that the promise to marry was false.  

The bench, perusing the FIR, noted that the (i) The relationship between the accused and prosecuterix was of a consensual nature; (ii) The parties were in the relationship for about a period of one and a half years; and (iii) Subsequently, the accused had expressed a disinclination to marry which led to the registration of the FIR.

In this case, The FIR stated that the accused and complainant developed a physical relationship which spread over a period of one and a half years, during the course of which she conversed with the parents and sister of the accused. It was alleged in the FIR that the parents of the accused were agreeable to the couple getting married.  In her statement under Section 164 of CrPC she stated that "now, he and his family members are refusing to marry with me" and that her "sole grievance is that Sonu is refusing to marry with me".

The court also referred to the judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra in which it was observed thus: 

""To summarise the legal position that emerges from the above cases, the "consent" of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the "consent" was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act"

While allowing the appeal, the bench observed that in this case there was only a subsequent refusal on the part of the accused to marry the prosecuterix which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. It observed:

"Bearing in mind the tests which have been enunciated in the above decision, we are of the view that even assuming that all the allegations in the FIR are correct for the purposes of considering the application for quashing under Section 482 of CrPC, no offence has been established. There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent was false at the inception. On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration of the FIR. On these facts, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in declining to entertain the petition under Section 482 of CrPC on the basis that it was only the evidence at trial which would lead to a determination as to whether an offence was established."

Case: Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No 233 of 2021]

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah

Counsel: Adv Amit Pawan, Adv Simant Kumar,  Adv Vishnu Shankar Jain

Citation: LL 2021 SC 137

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment