Difficult To Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex With False Marriage Promise : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 5) quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh advocate accused of repeatedly raping a married woman colleague on the false promise of marriage. “It has been time and again settled by this Court, that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 of the IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”, observed a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while setting aside the Chhattisgarh High Court's order that refused to quash the rape case against the Appellant. The complainant, also a 33-year-old advocate and a married mother with a pending divorce petition, had alleged that the Appellant established a physical relationship with her starting in September 2022 on the assurance of marriage. She claimed the relationship continued until January 2025, during which she became pregnant and was forced to undergo an abortion. After a confrontation with his family turned hostile, she lodged an FIR in February 2025 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which prescribes enhanced punishment for rape committed "repeatedly on the same woman." Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, the accused moved to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna observed that the complainant was legally married throughout the period of the alleged relationship, as her divorce was still pending adjudication. Consequently, any promise of marriage made by the appellant to a married woman was legally impossible to perform from its inception, as under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a marriage is void if either party has a living spouse. “The law prohibits bigamous unions and therefore disallows parties from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the view that the complainant-respondent No.3, who herself is an advocate, was oblivious to the said settled position of law and hence was duped and induced by the accused appellant into having sexual relations with him on different occasions on the pretext of marriage especially when both the parties were cognizant of the marital status of the complainant respondent No.3.,” the Court stated.Married complainant cannot plead she was coaxed with false pretext of marriage : SCThe Court noted that the complainant cannot be allowed to plead that she was coaxed into false marriage promise, when she herslef was a married woman."It is an admitted fact that the complainant-respondent No.3, within the first initial meetings told the accused-appellant that she was a married woman with divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court. Therefore, in the same breath, she cannot be allowed to claim and allege that she was also coaxed by the accused-appellant into having a physical relationship with him on the false pretext of marriage as the two facts cannot stand together on the same plane and simultaneously as both are antagonistic and antithetical to each other. In our opinion, the facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both the parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving the State into their personal relationship turning rancour."The Court found the present case did not demonstrate a false promise made with a mens rea to deceive for sexual gratification. Instead, it pointed to a consensual relationship between two aware, educated adults that later turned acrimonious. “In our opinion, the facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both the parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving the State into their personal relationship turning rancour.”, the Court added.SC advises caution in cases alleging rape on false marriage pretextThe Court also cautioned that rape allegations over false promise marriage must be treated carefully."The Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in identifying the genuine cases filed under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC by identifying the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence i.e. there should be a promise of marriage made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations and without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations. Such genuine cases that deserve prosecution of the accused must be clearly demarcated from the...

Difficult To Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex With False Marriage Promise : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

Yash Mittal

The Court held that a promise to marry a woman with a subsisting marriage is void in law and cannot sustain a repeated rape charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Difficult To Believe Married Woman Was Induced Into Sex With False Marriage Promise : Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

Yash Mittal

The Court held that a promise to marry a woman with a subsisting marriage is void in law and cannot sustain a repeated rape charge under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers