The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a married woman cannot claim rape on the false promise of marriage, as her consent for a physical relationship cannot be considered misguided or obtained under misconception. The court quashed an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape by a married woman.
Case Background:
The case stems from an FIR registered in 2019 at Police Station Piplani, Bhopal against the accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, a married woman with children, alleged that the accused had physical relations with her for 8 years on the false promise of marriage.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether consent for physical relations by a married woman can be vitiated by false promise of marriage
2. Distinction between breach of promise to marry and false promise made with intent to deceive
3. Applicability of rape charges when complainant was already married
Court’s Decision:
The single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi allowed the petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of the FIR. The court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings against the accused.
Important Observations:
The court made several significant observations:
1. “Considering the factual position as has been admitted by the prosecutrix herself, it is clear that there was long physical relations between the petitioner and the prosecutrix. It is also clear that on the date when they came into contact with each other and physical relations developed between them, the prosecutrix was a married lady.”
2. “The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to.”
3. “Here it is a case that on the date of developing physical relation, the question of promise of marriage does not arise that too with a married lady as she was continued in relationship with the petitioner for a long period of 8 years and thereafter she got decree of divorce from her husband.”
4. “There was no consent obtained by the accused/petitioner on the basis of misconception of fact. Accordingly, the offence of 376 is not made out in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court.”
Also Read
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), to conclude that the case did not fall within the definition of rape under Section 375 IPC.
Lawyers and Case Details:
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Shri Rahul Deshmukh
– State’s Counsel: Smt. Shraddha Tiwari
– Complainant’s Counsel: Shri Vivek Agrawal
– Case Number: M.Cr.C. No. 31926 of 2019
