The Allahabad High Court said that the complainant was a lady of matured age and was having two sons of matured age, equivalent to that of the accused and at the time of initiating the physical relationship, the complainant had her husband alive, therefore, the promise of marriage was of no consequence at all.
File photo of the Allahabad High Court. (Photo credit: PTI)
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court recently quashed a rape case on false promise of marriage lodged by a 50-year-old woman against 26-year-old man, observing that physical relationship was a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship, which would not amount to rape within the meaning of section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“If the parties were having long-standing continuous consensual physical relationship without there being any element of cheating from the inception, such relationship would not amount to rape,” Justice Anish Kumar Gupta said.
High Court was hearing a plea by accused seeking quashing of rape case against him
The High Court was hearing a plea by the accused seeking quashing of chargesheet as well as the entire criminal proceedings against him registered on the complaint of a woman alleging rape on false promise of marriage and pending before a sessions court in Moradabad.
What did the complainant say?
As per the complaint, the husband of the complainant was suffering from the disease of sugar for the last 15 years and despite various treatments, his condition did not improve. He introduced his wife to the accused, saying that he is a faithful person and will take care of her. Gradually, they became very close and the accused allegedly told the complainant that her husband would be alive only for few more days, thereafter, both of them would marry. The complainant alleged that taking the her in his confidence and promising her to marry in future, the accused started to have physical relationship with her. Her husband ultimately died in 2017 and even after the death of her husband, the accused continued to have physical relation with her and avoided marrying her. Subsequently, she came to know that the accused had got engaged with some other woman and she told the accused that he was continuously raping her on the pretext of promise to marry and now he has got engaged with some other lady.
Promise of marriage was of no consequence at all: HC
The High Court said that the complainant was a lady of matured age and was having two sons of matured age, equivalent to that of the accused and at the time of initiating the physical relationship, the complainant had her husband alive, therefore, the promise of marriage as alleged in the instant case by the complainant was of no consequence at all as the complainant was herself incompetent to marry at the time of initiation of such relationship.
“Therefore, the prosecutrix herself involved the applicant in the physical relationship out of her own lust and cannot blame the applicant for breach of promise as the promise itself was not non-est at that time of beginning of the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix,” the High Court said.
The High Court further said that at the time of initiation of the physical relationship with the accused, her husband was alive and therefore, the allegation that the accused had promised her to marry was of no consequence as the complainant herself was not having any capacity to marry with the accused at the relevant time and such consensual physical relationship between the accused and the complainant had continued for about 12-13 years without any objection on the part of the complainant.
Physical relationship between accused and complainant was a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship: HC
“Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court the aforesaid physical relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was a long-standing consensual adulterous physical relationship, which would not amount to rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC,” the High Court said.
The High Court further said that each and every promise of marriage would not be considered as a fact of misconception for the purpose of consensual sexual intercourse unless it is established that such promise of marriage was a false promise of marriage on the part of the accused since the beginning of such relationship.
“This court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case no offence of rape is made out against the applicant herein and the instant FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix being annoyed with regard to the engagement of the applicant with some other lady and she was not willing to leave the applicant, therefore, the subsequent incident of forcible rape has been concocted by the prosecutrix only for the purpose of lodging the FIR, which is not substantiated during the investigation, the High Court said while quashing the case and proceedings arising from the said FIR.
Next Article
Follow us on social media
