Mere Breach Of Promise To Marry Does Not Constitute Rape In Absence Of Initial Deception: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that a mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it is prima facie shown that the promise was false from the very inception and was made solely to obtain consent. Applying this principle, the Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 376 IPC, holding that the allegations disclosed, at best, a failed consensual relationship between two adults.Justice Ashish Naithani allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire proceedings arising out of an FIR registered at Police Station Mussoorie, Dehradun.The FIR alleged that the applicant and the complainant were in a relationship and that the applicant had established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. It was further alleged that he later refused to marry her, leading to registration of offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC.The record indicated that both parties were majors and had been in a relationship for a considerable period, with continued interaction and physical relations. It was alleged that on 05.03.2023, the applicant again assured the prosecutrix that he would marry her within 45 days; however, he later refused to do so. This, consequently, led to the filing of the FIR on 17.05.2023. The prosecution case was founded primarily on the allegation that such relations were induced on a promise of marriage, which was subsequently not fulfilled. Counsel for the applicant contended that the material on record itself established a consensual relationship of long duration between two adults. It was argued that the prosecution's case was based solely on a subsequent refusal to marry, and that there was no material to suggest that the promise of marriage was false from the inception.It was further submitted that the continuation of proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of process, as the case, at its highest, disclosed a failed relationship rather than a criminal offence.The State and the complainant opposed the application, contending that the prosecutrix had consistently stated that her consent was obtained on the assurance of marriage, and that whether the promise was false from inception was a matter of evidence to be tested at trial.The Court examined the FIR, charge-sheet, and material on record, and noted that it was not in dispute that both parties were majors and were in a relationship spanning a considerable period, involving continued interaction and consensual physical relations.It reiterated that consent given by an adult woman does not become vitiated merely because the relationship ultimately results in refusal to marry. To attract Section 376 IPC on the ground of promise of marriage, there must be prima facie material to show that the promise was false from the very inception and intended only to secure consent.“The legal position governing such cases is no longer res integra. Consent for sexual relations, when given by an adult woman, does not become vitiated merely because a relationship ultimately culminates in refusal to marry. To attract the offence under Section 376 IPC on the ground of promise of marriage, it must be prima facie shown that the promise was false from the very inception and was made solely as a device to obtain consent. A mere breach of promise, howsoever reprehensible morally, does not ipso facto constitute rape in the absence of material indicating initial deception”, the Court said. On facts, the Court found that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet disclosed any circumstance indicating such initial deception. On the contrary, the admitted duration and continuity of the relationship militated against an inference that the promise was fraudulent from the outset.“In the present case, neither the FIR nor the charge sheet discloses any specific circumstance, conduct, or contemporaneous material suggesting that the Applicant never intended to marry the complainant from the inception of the relationship. On the contrary, the admitted long duration of the relationship, repeated interactions, and continued voluntary association militates against an inference of initial fraudulent intent. The allegations, taken at their face value, at best indicate a relationship that subsequently failed, which by itself cannot be criminalized under Section 376 IPC”, the Court reasoned. While noting the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court observed that where the uncontroverted allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process and must be prevented.Holding that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC and arose out of a failed consensual relationship, the High Court allowed the petition.The charge-sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings were quashed.Case Name: Suraj Bora v State of Uttarakhand and Another Case...

Mere Breach Of Promise To Marry Does Not Constitute Rape In Absence Of Initial Deception: Uttarakhand High Court

Preet Luthra

Tags