No false promise of marriage; Prosecutrix mature enough to foresee her actions: Supreme Court quashes the FIR alleging Rape
Case title – XXXX vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 3431 OF 2023
Decided on – March 06, 2024
Quoram – Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
Facts of the case
The respondent 2/complainant, a married women had filed an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC alleging that her tenant (appellant) maintained physical relationship with her on a promise to marry her.
The appellant in the present case filed an appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR against him. The High Court dismissed the petition filed by him. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Apex Court.
Court’s observation and analysis
Firstly, the Court noted the discrepancy in the FIR filed by the complainant and the statement recorded by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
In the FIR, the respondent/complainant stated that she managed her own cloth shop. As there was a dispute with her husband, she was living separately. She has a daughter aged 15 years. On 10.12.2018, she got divorce from her husband. In 2017, Sadbhav Company had taken first floor of their house on rent in which the appellant, who was working with the company, stayed. During spare time, the appellant used to meet her in the shop.
Gradually, the relations developed. The appellant proposed that in case she takes divorce, he will marry her. The complainant stated that after the divorce, on 10.01.2019, at about 11.00 PM, the appellant came to her room and had physical relations on false promise of marriage. When she insisted for marriage, he refused by saying that his family didn’t agree. Thereafter, the FIR was got recorded on 11.12.2020.
There was complete change in the stand of the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The fact remains that the parties admittedly were in relations from 2017 onwards. Some alleged promise to marry came in January 2019, from where they started having physical relations. It has also come on record that it is not only the consent of the complainant which is clearly evident but also of the parents and daughter of the complainant as they were living in the same house, where allegedly the appellant and the complainant were having physical relations.
Secondly, the court observed that, in the FIR the complainant stated that she got divorce from her earlier husband on 10.12.2018. But, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that marriage between the appellant and the complainant was solemnized in a temple in January 2019. However, in actuality, the complainant obtained divorce from her husband in 2021, which reveals that the complainant re-married the appellant during subsistence of her earlier marriage.
Thirdly, on the basis of the FIR and the statement recorded, the Court inferred there was no promise to marry initially when the relationship started in the year 2017. Even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married to the appellant. The Court relied on the precedence in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and ruled that the appellant was not guilty in the instant case.
Judgement
The complainant had a child who was 15 years old and was 10 years older than the tenant. The Court pointed out that the complainant was a mature individual who could foresee her actions and take right decision.
The Court stated that she was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. Therefore, the Court held that the initiation of rape proceedings against the appellant was an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR against the appellant.
“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 a 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.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K