Where it is wrong to agree to marry and where the manufacturer does not want to keep the promise itself, but rather to mislead the woman to get her to enter into sexual intercourse, a misconception arises that the woman’s consent is vitiated. On the other hand, it cannot be said that a violation of a contract is a mistaken premise. The man making the vow should not have intended to keep his word when he gave it to create a false promise. The judgement was passed by the High Court of Tripura in the case of Jayanta Chakraborty v. The State of Tripura [Crl. Petn. No.11/2020] by Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice MR. Akil Kureshi.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Senior Manager of ONGC Tripura Power Corporation Limited. The complainant was also an employee of the said Corporation but at a much junior level. She lodged the said FIR against the petitioner of offences punishable under Sections 376, 419 and 354A(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that neither in the FIR nor during investigation any offence is made out against the petitioner. Even if all averments made in the complaint are taken at the face value, no offence can be stated to have been committed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the charge sheet having already been filed, the petitioner should be allowed to file a discharge application before the concerned Court which can examine the material on record more minutely and come to a proper conclusion.
While relying on the apex court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. the State of Maharashtra and Anr, wherein, it was held that “Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a misconception of the fact that vitiates the woman’s consent. On the other hand, a breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it. The consent of a woman under Section 375 is vitiated on the ground of a misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis for her choosing to engage in the said act.”
While dismissing the petition the court observed that “Nowhere has the complainant either in the FIR or even in her statement recorded by the police, ever alleged that the accused personated himself as some other person and influenced by such personation, she gives consent for a physical relationship. As noted, under Section 415 of IPC, a person can be said to have committed the offence of cheating if he has deceived a person fraudulently or dishonestly into inducing such a person to do or not to do a certain act which the person otherwise would not have done or omitted. In the present case, there are no allegations of deception by the accused fraudulently or dishonestly.”