E-Paper
‘Married woman can’t claim false promise of marriage to allege rape’
Justice Maninder S Bhati said that from the reading of the FIR there is “no allegation” that the accused pressurised the complainant for a relationship under the guise of false promise of marriage.
The Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court has quashed an FIR accusing a 24-year-old man of rape, saying that the complainant cannot claim her consent for a physical relationship was taken on the pretext of marriage if she was already married to another man.
The accused, who himself was married to another woman, moved the high court last year after the woman (complainant) accused him of rape. The woman was married to a driver and has two children. She alleged that the accused, who is her neighbour, promised to marry her after divorcing his wife and the two were in a relationship for three months.
However, he allegedly later declined to marry her, stating that he was not in a position to divorce his own wife.
The single bench of justice Maninder S Bhati said that from the reading of the FIR there is “no allegation” that the accused pressurized the complainant for a relationship under the guise of false promise of marriage.
“Moreover, if the FIR is perused carefully and subjected to microscopic scrutiny it would reveal that there are no allegations that the present applicant pressurised the prosecutrix to enter into wedlock under the garb of false promise of marriage,” the court said.
Taking note of various rulings in similar cases, the court said, “The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court postulate that when the prosecutrix is married lady, and therefore, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of the consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of the fact’.”
The court further said that in such cases, “the FIR is required to be nipped in the bud, as the same would entail in the long drawn process of conduct of trial whereas the allegations levelled in the FIR on their face value, do not indicate the commission of offence under the aforesaid sections.”
