Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur Bench recently quashed a case where a woman accused a man of rape under the pretext of marriage, following their ten-year relationship that did not result in marriage.

Court emphasized that the mere end of a relationship does not allow a woman to file a rape case against the man.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi said, "...in the young age when a boy and a girl attracts towards each other and they flow in emotions and believe that they love each other, normally they carry impression that their relationship will naturally be led to marriage. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge the FIR saying that rape has been committed with her".

An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by a man seeking quashing of charge sheet/Final Report filed against him in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution and FIR, the woman alleged that the man had developed a physical relationship with her by falsely promising marriage. She stated that they had known each other for the past 11 years, during which the man assured her of marriage. Their relationship continued until 2020, but when the man secured a position as a doctor in a government hospital, he refused to marry her.

The counsel representing the man contended that the relationship between the woman and the accused was consensual, and crucially, the consent was not obtained under a misconception of fact.

It was also argued that as per the definition of ‘consent’ given in Section 90 of IPC and from the facts of the present case, it was clear that it was a clear-cut case of consent and therefore no offence as registered against the man was made out.

Court noted that from the FIR, it was palpably clear that the woman and the accused were very much familiar to each other and there was a love affair between them. 

Court further pointed out that though the relationship began in 2010, the woman did not report it till 2021 despite her allegations that she was raped on false promise of marriage.

"In the present case in view of the observation made by the Supreme Court on the issue, the consent cannot be considered to be a consent obtained under misconception of fact reason being the relationship between the parties was existing for a long period of 10 years but prosecutrix never realized that the petitioner was exploiting her by developing physical relation with her continuously. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioner that he developed physical relation with the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage. It is also difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship, which continued for over 10 years, as ‘rape’ especially in the facts of the complainant’s own allegation," the high court held. 

Therefore, court opined that the present case could not be considered to be a case of rape as defined under Section 375 of IPC and the prosecution was nothing but appeared to be an abuse of process of law.

Case Title: xxx   v.    State of MP and Others