Refusal to marry no ground for rape: HC

The man moved the high court for quashing the case, contending that the physical relationship was consensual and said his subsequent refusal to marry the woman was no ground for the rape charge

The Bombay high court’s Aurangabad bench has quashed a rape case against a 33-year-old man saying he cannot be prosecuted for changing his mind after a long relationship and refusing to marry a woman he was in a relationship with.

The Bombay high court accepted the stand of the accused and said the statements of the woman’s relatives showed the man intended to marry her. (HT Photo)

“From the narration in the FIR (First Information Report) and the material collected during the course of the investigation, it is clear that the applicant had genuine desire to marry the victim,” said a division bench of justices Sunil Deshmukh and Nitin Suryavanshi.

“However, later he changed his mind and decided not to marry her. Merely because he resiled from his promise to marry, no offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) in the facts of the present case is made out against the applicant.”

According to the 30-year-old woman’s complaint in the case, the two had physical relations. She said the man on multiple occasions promised to marry her. She said her relatives approached the man with a marriage proposal but were asked to wait due to the Covid pandemic. They last year registered the rape against the 33-year-old for allegedly exploiting the complainant physically and mentally under the false promise of marriage.

The man moved the high court for quashing the case, contending that the physical relationship was consensual. He said his subsequent refusal to marry the woman was no ground for the rape charge.

The prosecution maintained the woman’s consent was obtained under the false promise of marriage and since the beginning, the applicant had no intention to marry her.

The court accepted the stand of the accused. It said the statements of the woman’s relatives showed the man intended to marry her. “However, later he changed his mind,” said the bench. “Considering these aspects, it cannot be said that the applicant had given a false promise of marriage to the victim and obtained her consent for establishing physical relations... It appears that the consensual physical relations were the outcome of their love affair.”