Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in a significant ruling, dismissed an application seeking the quashing of an FIR for offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), providing with the punishment for committing rape repeatedly on the same woman.

The court's verdict, delivered by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, came after careful consideration of the case involving allegations of rape and false promises of marriage. The court observed that “it cannot be held that because of failure on the part of the applicant to keep his promise the consent of prosecutrix was obtained by misconception of fact. On the contrary, it is clear that right from very inception the applicant did not have any intention to marry her and therefore, it is clear that he had obtained the consent of prosecutrix by misconception of fact. Therefore, in the light of Section 90 of IPC, consent of prosecutrix cannot be said to be a free consent.”

The case of the petitioner rested on the assertion that he was willing to marry the prosecutrix, thereby seeking to mitigate the charges against him. He sought to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and also filed a separate application, I.A. No. 5442/2024, seeking permission to compound the offence.

On the other hand, the prosecutrix alleged that she was raped by the applicant, who had promised to marry her. The incident reportedly occurred on March 25, 2021, following a period of courtship during which the accused/ petitioner allegedly made repeated assurances of marriage. Subsequently, the prosecutrix left her job and moved to Gujarat at the insistence of the accused, but the marriage never materialized.

The petitioner contended that since the prosecutrix was a consenting adult and had voluntarily engaged in a physical relationship, the charge of rape should not apply. Additionally, it was argued that the failure to marry was due to familial opposition and not a lack of intent on the petitioner's part.

The court, however, found these arguments unsubstantiated. It noted that despite assurances of marriage, the petitioner did not fulfill his promise, indicating a lack of genuine intent. Even after obtaining bail on the promise of marriage, the petitioner failed to honour his commitment. The court also emphasised that “it appears that the intention of applicant right from day one was to physically exploit the prosecutrix and had no intention to marry her .”

Consequently, the court ruled against quashing the FIR, emphasising that the petitioner's actions constituted a clear case of obtaining consent by misconception of fact and the same did not amount to free consent within the meaning of Section 90 of IPC.

The court dismissed the FIR, noting that “no case is made out for quashment of FIR.”

 

Cause Title: Govind Gorele v State of Madhya Pradesh [MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9045 of 2024]