The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and a subsequent charge sheet filed against a 27-year-old man accused of rape and offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, observed that the relationship between the parties was consensual and not based on a “misconception of fact” or a false promise to marry. The Court held that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Case Background
The applicant approached the High Court seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered on December 8, 2020, at Police Station Nandgaon Peth, Amravati. The FIR alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) (Repeated rape on the same woman), 294 (Obscene acts and songs), 506(2) (Criminal intimidation), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
According to the FIR lodged by the complainant (Non-applicant No.2), she and the applicant came into contact on August 4, 2017, and a romantic relationship developed between them. The complainant stated that this relationship continued until November 2020, during which they “voluntarily engaged in the sexual activities on multiple occasions.”
The complainant alleged that the applicant “portrayed a false picture of marriage and continued to maintain physical relations with her under the pretext of marrying her.” The dispute arose when the complainant learned that the applicant was engaged to another woman. She demanded that he break off the engagement, and following the intervention of family members, she lodged the FIR.
A charge sheet was subsequently filed on December 31, 2020, adding a charge under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act.
Arguments
Advocate S.S. Shingane, appearing for the applicant, submitted that both parties were adults, with the complainant being 35 years old and the applicant being a major. He argued that the parties were involved in a “voluntarily sexual relationship out of their own consent and free will.” He contended that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, no offence was made out against the applicant.
On behalf of the State, Additional Public Prosecutor N.B. Jawade opposed the application, arguing that the “aspect of consent cannot be inferred at this stage” and that the applicant should face trial.
Advocate Deepali Sahare, appointed for the complainant, supported the prosecution, stating that the applicant had “forcefully coerced the non-applicant No.2 to enter into a relationship under the false pretext of marriage.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court perused the case papers, including the charge sheet and the FIR. The Bench noted that the parties were 30 and 27 years of age, respectively.
“The parties are therefore sane enough to understand the repercussions of engaging and continuing any relationship,” the Court observed.
Regarding the nature of the consent, the Court stated:
“Looking at the ages of the parties, and looking at the length for which relationship continued i.e. for more than three years, it can safely be inferred that parties engaged themselves into sexual relationship out of their own consent and free will and without any promise of marrying.”
The Bench further noted that the FIR was lodged only after the applicant got engaged to another woman. The Court found no material on record to suggest that the applicant “never intended to marry the non-applicant No. 2, nor such intention was there at the initiation of the relationship.”
Referring to the legal distinction between a “breach of promise” and a “false promise,” the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019). The Apex Court in that case held that there is a distinction between a false promise given on the understanding that it will be broken, and the breach of a promise made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.
The High Court observed:
“It is therefore the duty of the Court to examine that the false promise was made only at the inception thereof and not thereafter.”
Applying this principle to the present facts, the Court concluded:
“In view of the facts of the present case… we are of the considered opinion that the relationship was between two major adults spanning for more than four years, and therefore, consensual in nature. The consent of the non-applicant No.2 was not obtained under a misconception or a false promise to marry.”
Decision
Citing the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others (1992), the Bench held that further continuance of the proceedings would result in a “miscarriage of justice.”
The Court allowed the application and passed the following order:
- The FIR dated 08.12.2020 (Crime No. 0324/2020) registered at Police Station Nandgaon Peth is quashed and set aside.
- The Charge Sheet (No. 107/2020) pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Amravati, is quashed and set aside.
