PRAYAGRAJ: <\/em>The Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong> recently quashed rape <\/a>proceedings<\/strong> filed against a man accused of establishing physical relations on the false promise of marriage<\/strong>, observing that a failed relationship between two consenting adults cannot automatically be turned into a criminal case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh<\/strong>, who held that criminal law should not be misused after consensual relationships turn sour<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the case, the woman and the accused came in contact during a marriage function and remained in a relationship for nearly one year<\/strong>. The woman alleged that the accused promised to marry her, but later refused, after which an FIR was lodged under rape and other IPC provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the case, the Court found several inconsistencies in the allegations<\/strong>. The FIR did not clearly mention the exact date, time or place of the alleged rape. The Court also noted that the woman\u2019s statements changed during investigation<\/strong>. Medical examination did not show any injury marks and the woman herself admitted that she was a major who voluntarily remained in the relationship.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Vivek Kumar Singh relied upon several Supreme Court judgments dealing with consensual relationships and false promise of marriage allegations. Referring to Mahesh Damu Khare Vs State of Maharashtra<\/em><\/strong>, the Court noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf a man is accused of having sexual relationship by making a false promise of marriage and if he is to be held criminally liable, any such physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise made.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court also relied upon Prashant Vs State of NCT of Delhi<\/em><\/strong>, where the Supreme Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA mere breakup of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further referred to Supreme Court observations warning against misuse of rape laws in failed relationships. It quoted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTo convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Explaining the legal position, the High Court stated that there is a major difference between a false promise to marry and a simple failure to marry later due to changing circumstances. Referring to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra<\/em><\/strong>, the Court reiterated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It observed that the woman and the accused remained in a consensual relationship for nearly one year and both families were aware about it. The woman herself admitted that she voluntarily remained in the relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that there is-<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA growing trend that consensual relationships going on for a prolonged period, upon turning sour, have been sought to be criminalised by invoking criminal jurisprudence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finding no material to show that the accused had dishonest intentions from the beginning, the Allahabad High Court quashed the FIR, charge-sheet and entire criminal proceedings against the accused man.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 376 IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishment for rape<\/td> Woman alleged physical relationship was established on false promise of marriage<\/td><\/tr> Section 323 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for causing hurt<\/td> Allegation of physical assault by accused<\/td><\/tr> Section 342 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for wrongful confinement<\/td> Woman alleged she was wrongfully confined<\/td><\/tr> Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for criminal intimidation<\/td> Allegation that accused threatened the woman<\/td><\/tr> Section 528 BNSS<\/strong><\/td> High Court\u2019s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings<\/td> Accused approached High Court seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings<\/td><\/tr> Section 161 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Recording statement during police investigation<\/td> Woman\u2019s statement was recorded by police during investigation<\/td><\/tr> Section 164 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Recording statement before Magistrate<\/td> Court examined woman\u2019s judicial statement while deciding the matter<\/td><\/tr> Section 90 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Defines consent obtained under misconception of fact<\/td> Court analysed whether consent was obtained through false promise<\/td><\/tr> Section 375 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Defines offence of rape<\/td> Court examined whether ingredients of rape were actually made out<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n