0

A person would not fall under the definition of rape if it can be demonstrated that the promise to marry given to the prosecutrix was not false at the inception when they indulged in sexual act, but subsequently he failed to honour his promise to marry the prosecutrix: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE

This petition stands disposed of by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE in the case of SACHIN JAIN V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH through HON’BLE JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts of the case are that on 21.07.2020, an FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the present petitioner under Sections 376, 294 and 506 of IPC, stating that she is a resident of Indore and is a divorcee having a four years’ old son, residing with her mother, brother and sister-in-law. Further, her case is that she wanted to settle in life once again, and with this purpose to remarry, she uploaded her bio data on a matrimonial site for marriage and subsequently the present petitioner Sachin Jain showed his interest in her, and spoke to her on telephone and after satisfying that she is a divorcee started talking to her from 30.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner left for China and came back in the month of January, 2020, however, he spoke to her from his Chinese number and they also Chatted on his web Chat I.D. sachin32jain. Soon he proposed her and also told her that he would adopt her son and as he wanted to meet her, they met for the first time on 21.02.2020 where he took her to a hotel and reiterated that he wants to marry her and also wants to adopt her son. Thereafter on 22.02.2020, he went to Dubai and after coming from Dubai on 29.02.2020, he met her in Indore and took her to some Hotel at Tukoganj, Indore, there he tried to get intimate with her, but as she protested, he consoled her that he would marry her, however, he did not do anything on that day and left her back to Tower Chauraha(Square). He also introduced her to his sister, brother-in-law and mother and when they also consented to their marriage, their relation became cordial and her son also started addressing the petitioner as his dad. On 26.06.2020, petitioner came to her house along with her mother, sister and brother-in-law to which the prosecutrix thought that he has come to fulfill his promise and take her to the upper floor to talk to her privately and took advantage of her. Thereafter, they left for Bhopal and from there the petitioner also called her to come to Bhopal where they would enjoy to which the prosecutrix refused as she said that as she has still not married to him, her family members would not allow her to go on her own, to which the petitioner got angry and started abusing her and also told her that he has already made contacts with many such women from the matrimonial site and threatened her with dire consequences and also blocked her and when she tried to call the petitioner’s mother, sister and brother-in-law, they also blocked her phone number. Thus, the prosecutrix got scared and lodged the report alleging that the petitioner had sexually exploited her and she wants legal action against him.

JUDGEMENT
In this case, it is apparent that as held by the Supreme Court, a person would not fall under the definition of rape if it can be demonstrated that the promise to marry given to the prosecutrix was not false at the inception when they indulged in sexual act, but subsequently he failed to honour his promise to marry the prosecutrix. Assuming that the prosecutrix had physical relationship with the petitioner at her home, his immediate conduct as also the conduct of his family members clearly reveals that all of them had agreed that the prosecutrix should marry the petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that what transpired on 26.06.2020 in the house of the prosecutrix was a rape as it was not against her will, or not without her consent, and there was no false promise which can suggest that it was a rape. Also, it is rather difficult to believe that a man who has gone to the house of a woman along with his mother, sister and brother-in-law with a marriage proposal, would commit rape on her on the upper floor. The story of the prosecutrix appears rather preposterous. In view of the same, this Court finds force with the contentions raised by the senior counsel for the petitioner that it is not a case of rape but of consensual relationship, if at all. Resultantly, the petition stands allowed and the FIR registered at Crime No.47/2020 under Sections 376, 294 and 506 of IPC registered against the petitioner at Police Station—Mahila Thana, Palasia, Indore as also the subsequent charge-sheet are hereby quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the aforementioned charges. All the subsequent proceedings relating to aforementioned crime number registered against the petitioner are also quashed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

Click here to read the Judgement

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SHREYA NIDHI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat