Sexual Exploitation Of Women On False Marriage Promise A Growing Tendency, Must Be Nipped In Bud: Allahabad High Court

The observation was made by a Bench of Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava, who rejected the anticipatory bail application of an accused booked under various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 69 (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.).

Briefly put, Accused-Prashant Pal has been accused of establishing physical relations with the victim on a false promise of marriage and subjected her to physical and mental torture.

It was alleged that despite a 5-year relationship, the accused subsequently refused to marry her and he got engaged to another woman.

Seeking protection from arrest, the applicant moved the HC, wherein his counsel contended that the allegations were vague and false. It was argued that both of them are major and have been living together since 2020 in a consensual relationship, but that he had never made any promise to marry her.

It was further submitted that a mere refusal to marry after a long relationship does not constitute a crime.

On the other hand, the AGA for the State opposed his plea as it was argued that, on the false pretext of marriage, the accused applicant continued to have sexual relations with the victim for a period of five years.

It was also submitted that the medical examination corroborated the victim's version of sexual violence and the accused was even threatening the victim with obscene videos.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the High Court referred to several Supreme Court decisions to note that, for a promise to be considered false, the maker must have had no intention of fulfilling it at the time of making it.

The Court also noted from the SC orders that if the intention was to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, it constitutes a "misconception of fact" which vitiates the woman's consent.

Considering the factual matrix of the present case, the Court found that the accused's conduct fell squarely within the ambit of false promise.

"In the present case, it reflects from the factual matrix of the matter that the fraudulent intention of the accused applicant towards the victim of the case was there from the very inception. Since the very inception, he never intended to marry with the victim and he was only fulfilling his lust," the Court stated.

The Court expressed deep concern regarding the nature of the offence, characterising it as "serious against society". Rejecting the defence of consensual relationship, the Bench remarked:

"On the false promise of marriage, he made physical relations with the prosecutrix again and again. Exploiting the victim on the pretext of marriage and finally refusing to marry her are such tendencies growing in the society, which must be nipped in the bud. It is a serious offence against the society, hence the applicant is not entitled to any indulgence".

The Court further noted that, although the victim was a major and aware of the consequences of the act she was committing with the accused, she completely believed in and trusted him.

However, it added, on the other hand, from the very inception of the relationship, the accused applicant did not intend to marry her.

Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.