Married Woman Mature Enough To Understand Consequences: P&H High Court Quashes Rape On Pretext Of Marriage Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a criminal complaint and summoning order against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, holding that a married woman, who had not obtained divorce from her estranged husband, could not be said to have acted under a “misconception of fact” while consenting to a sexual relationship.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted, "the prosecutrix herself is a married lady, who had married with Boor Singh in the year 2008. However, in the year 2010, she started living separately from her husband and was residing at her parental house in Village Panje Ke Uttar till the date of institution of complaint. Still further, it is also apparent from the record that the respondent herself had not obtained divorce from her estranged husband and thus, it cannot be believed that the petitioner had promised to marry her."

The Court further said that from the facts of the case, it is further established that a married woman could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the petitioner or under misconception of fact while giving consent to have sexual relationship with the present petitioner.

"Even, undisputedly, she continued to have sexual relations with the petitioner for several months and even if the allegations made by her are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegation as “rape” by the petitioner would be stretching the case to far," it added.

The prosecutrix/respondent being a married woman was a mature lady and was intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act, she was consenting to. Apart from that, even if her conduct is viewed in entirety, it is apparent that she had betrayed her estranged husband and had developed a liking for the petitioner, without obtaining divorce from her husband, the Court said.

The bench concluded it is well proved from the facts and circumstances of the case that the prosecutrix had not given her consent for the sexual relationship with the petitioner under the misconception of fact, so as to prosecute the petitioner for having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 IPC.

As per the complaint, the prosecutrix alleged that the accused had established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage between January and March 2017, resulting in pregnancy which was later terminated without her consent. It was further alleged that the accused and his family members threatened her when she raised the issue.

The petitioner, however, contended that both parties were known to each other and were in a consensual relationship. It was argued that the complainant was already married and had not obtained a divorce, and therefore, the allegation of a false promise of marriage was inherently untenable. It was also submitted that the petitioner had got engaged and married another woman during the same period.

The Court noted that the complainant was admittedly a married woman who had been living separately from her husband since 2010 but had not obtained a divorce. In such circumstances, it held that it was difficult to accept that the petitioner could have induced her into a sexual relationship on the false promise of marriage.

Relying on cases of the Supreme Court, including Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, and Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that consent under Section 375 IPC must involve a reasoned and conscious decision, and a distinction must be drawn between a false promise made in bad faith and a mere breach of promise.

The Court observed that even if the allegations in the complaint were taken at face value, the relationship between the parties appeared consensual. It further held that a mature, married woman was capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions, and her consent could not be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact.

“Such allegations, even if accepted in entirety, cannot be construed as rape,” the Court observed, adding that extending the scope of rape in such circumstances would amount to stretching the legal provision too far.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Mr. Gourav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Seerat Saldi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Krishan Kumar Thakur, Advocate for the respondent.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX