Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court quashed summons against a man in a rape case, stating that while the case involved a breach of promise, it did not amount to an inherently false promise of marriage. The man had developed a friendship with the woman on Instagram before engaging in a physical relationship.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta allowed an appeal filed by one Manish Yadav against the summoning order issued by the Special Court, Ghazipur on August 24, 2023, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506, IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The apex court found that the theory put forth by the prosecution in the chargesheet that the appellant induced the complainant to indulge in physical relations under a false promise of marriage was neither corroborated nor established by the best evidence available on record, which was in the form of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC before a judicial magistrate.

The FIR in the case was lodged on August 5, 2023, by the girl alleging that the appellant befriended her over a social media website, namely Instagram which quickly bloomed into a romantic relationship. The appellant allegedly promised the complainant that he would marry her and they would live together as husband and wife.

It was alleged under the pretence of the said promise of marriage, the appellant established physical relations with the complainant frequently at different places viz Gazipur, Banaras, etc.

Subsequently, the appellant began assaulting her and used derogatory caste-based slurs, imputing that he would not marry her since he was a Yadav, but she belonged to a lower caste.

At the outset, the court noted, that the complainant was a major girl and was working at a Diagnostic Centre in Varanasi when she came in contact with the appellant on the social media website, namely, Instagram.

Going by her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the bench said, "We find that she had herself admitted that despite her reservations about engaging in a physical relationship with the appellant, she trusted him and had feelings for him."

As per the prosecution case, in September 2022, the complainant moved to Varanasi for work, whereas the appellant relocated to Prayagraj. Despite that, the appellant continued to visit her in Varanasi and engaged in physical relations with the complainant, allegedly without her consent.

In December 2022, the complainant discovered that she had become pregnant and thereupon, the appellant forced her to take medications to terminate the pregnancy.

However, the court found, the theory put forth by the complainant regarding the appellant forcing her to terminate the pregnancy had not been established, and thus, the offence under Section 313 IPC, stood dropped from the charge sheet.

The complainant further claimed that later on, her cousin had also come to reside with her. She alleged that in February 2022, she saw the appellant and the cousin engaged in an inappropriate position. In retaliation, she befriended another person to make the appellant jealous. Thereafter, the appellant cast aspersions on her character and refused to marry her stating that he was not willing to marry someone with whom he had been intimate once.

The bench, however, said, "In our opinion, it is clearly discernible that both the appellant and the complainant were major and thus, both were competent enough to make rational decisions. As per the statement of the complainant, their initial physical relations were consensual in nature, and without there being any promise of marriage being offered by the appellant."

While it can be said that initially the relationship between the complainant and appellant had developed on the basis of mutual attraction and affection, which cannot by any stretch of imagination fall within the ambit of a relationship flowing from a promise to marry, the bench opined.

Going through the criminal jurisprudence on the scope of 'consent' in cases where sexual intercourse took place on the promise of marriage, the bench pointed out that in Uday Vs State of Karnataka (2003) the apex court acquitted the accused based on the reasoning that the prosecutrix, a mature college student, consented to sexual intercourse with the accused of her own free will. The court had then found that the alleged victim was fully aware of the consequences of her actions and had held that her consent was not based on any misconception of fact.

In Deepak Gulati Vs State of Haryana (2013), while discussing the nature of the ‘consent’ in cases where sexual intercourse occurs on the promise of marriage, this court distinguished between a mere ‘breach of promise’ and ‘not fulfilling a false promise’, the bench said.

It further pointed out that in Deelip Singh Vs State of Bihar (2005), the accused was acquitted as there was a breach of promise to marry, and not a case of false promise to marry.

Applying the principle, the bench said, the present case might involve a breach of promise, but it did not constitute a case of an inherently false promise to marry.

"Based on the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the appellant obtained the complainant’s consent to engage in a physical relationship under the pretext of a false promise of marriage," the bench said.

Court further noted, admittedly, during his visit to Varanasi, the appellant himself had asked the complainant to elope with him and get married, but it was the complainant who insisted on waiting till he secured a job.

"Therefore, while the prosecution story primarily rests on the fact that the appellant had lured the complainant to develop physical relations with him on the promise to marry her in future, this very statement of the complainant suggests the contrary. The complainant’s act of declining the appellant’s proposal of marriage shows that it was not the appellant who failed to stand firm upon his promise if any such promise was made by the appellant at any point in time," the court said.

The bench also pointed out, in her statement, the complainant had not uttered a single word that showed that she was maligned or abused by the appellant for belonging to a particular caste.

"Therefore, we are of the firm view that the ingredients of the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act, against the appellant are ex-facie not made out from the highest allegations as set out in the charge sheet," the bench said.

The court thus opined that the present case appeared to be one where a consensual physical relationship between two adults had turned sour due to certain intervening events.

"Hence, allowing the prosecution of the appellant for the offences mentioned above would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law and nothing else," the bench said, quashing the proceedings in the case.

The apex court allowed the appeal against the Allahabad High Court's order of August 30, 2024, which had quashed the summons only against the appellant's father Rajnath Yadav but upheld the proceedings against the appellant.

Case Title: Manish Yadav Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr