The Kerala High Court has ruled that the charge of rape based on a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained when the complainant is already married and continues to be in that marital relationship. The verdict was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen while allowing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioner in a case under Sections 342 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint that alleged the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with the complainant under a false promise of marriage. The complainant asserted that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse multiple times between April and October 2022, during which she also transferred ₹9,30,000 to the accused. When the accused later refused to marry her, a First Information Report (FIR) was filed on February 3, 2023.
The accused, in turn, moved the High Court seeking to quash the charges, contending that he had initially proposed marriage believing the complainant was unmarried but later discovered that she was already married with two children. Upon learning this, he withdrew his proposal, leading to the present allegations against him.
Legal Issues Before the Court
The Court examined the legal question of whether a sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage constitutes rape under Section 376 of the IPC when the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage.
The Public Prosecutor, representing the State, acknowledged that the complainant had admitted to being married with two children and had not obtained a divorce before entering into the alleged relationship with the accused.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice A. Badharudeen, in his order, underscored the essential elements of the offence of rape under Section 375 of the IPC, particularly the aspect of consent obtained under a misconception of fact. He noted:
“Offering marriage and subjecting a woman to sexual intercourse based on that promise would amount to obtaining consent by misconception of fact. But the scenario is absolutely different when the woman is already married and continues that marriage without divorce. In such cases, the very promise of marriage is an impossibility, making the allegations baseless.”
The Court further pointed out that the lack of a legal possibility of marriage negates the claim of misconception, as the complainant could not have legally entered into another marriage while still married to her existing spouse.
Additionally, the accused contended that the complainant had a history of impersonation and financial fraud, citing multiple criminal cases registered against her. However, the Court clarified that such allegations alone were not a ground to quash the proceedings but found merit in the argument that the promise of marriage was legally untenable.
In light of these findings, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in S.C. No. 1071 of 2023, pending before the Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur. It held that since the complainant’s marital status made a promise of marriage legally unenforceable, no offence under Section 376 of the IPC could be sustained.
