Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered for rape and criminal intimidation, finding it difficult for any "reasonable man" to believe the prosecutrix’s story, particularly given her subsequent marriage to the accused.

Justice Vishal Dhagat, presiding over the single-judge bench, highlighted inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's narrative, particularly her failure to lodge an FIR. The court questioned the credibility of the prosecutrix's claims, who later married the accused, but alleged that he repeatedly raped her. “Circumstances show that no reasonable man will believe on the story which prosecutrix is narrating before the police station regarding commission of rape on her,” the court remarked.

The court further observed “…From her statement, it is clear that there is no case that the prosecutrix has surrendered to the petitioner under false promise of marriage but forceful rape has been committed on her. Despite forceful rape being committed by the petitioner on her repeatedly for a long time, she did not lodge an FIR against the petitioner. On the contrary, she also married the petitioner…”

The case revolved around a complaint filed by the prosecutrix under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecutrix and the accused / petitioner were in a relationship for over five years and got married on October 27, 2021, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Nehru Nagar, Bhopal. Following disputes, they sought counselling at Parivar Paramarsh Kendra. The prosecutrix later alleged that the accused had repeatedly raped her under the false promise of marriage and threatened her life. She claimed that the marriage was a sham, orchestrated to deceive the law, and that the accused had filed for annulment just days after the marriage.

The accused argued that no offence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506-II of the IPC was made out. It was highlighted that the prosecutrix's age of 31 and the inter-caste marriage and the relationship between the two parties was consensual and within the bounds of marriage as defined by Exception 2 of Section 375 of the IPC, which exempts marital sexual relations from being classified as rape.

The petitioner maintained that the allegations were a result of marital disputes and that the prosecutrix lodged a false report under external influence, requesting the court to quash the FIR, and discharge the petitioner from the charges.

The court considered two key questions -

1. Whether intercourse happened between petitioner and prosecutrix during subsistence of marriage ?

2. Whether petitioner has committed intercourse by making false promise of marriage ?

The court noted that the marriage between the petitioner and the prosecutrix took place on October 27, 2021. However, the prosecutrix alleged that the rape occurred prior to their marriage. Since the purported intercourse under false promises happened before the marriage, petitioner's actions did not fall under the protection of Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which exempts marital relations from being classified as rape.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the narrative of the prosecutrix. The court observed that the prosecutrix did not believe the false promises of marriage and consistently resisted accused's advances. Despite her claims of coercion and forceful rape, she did not file an immediate FIR and proceeded to marry the accused, suggesting a lack of credibility in her allegations.

Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the prosecutrix's narrative was not credible and quashed the FIR and the chargesheet filed against the accused.

 

Cause Title: Sandeep Kumar Soni v State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Revision No. 4421 of 2022]