The Court quashed a rape case against a man booked on the complaint of a married woman last year.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that a married woman cannot claim her consent to engage in physical relations with another man was obtained through a false promise of marriage [Veerendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice Maninder S Bhatti dismissed a rape case filed against a man based on a complaint made by a married woman last year.
Citing precedents in similar cases, the Court noted:
“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 accused, who was also married to another woman, approached the High Court after being charged with rape by the complainant. The complainant, a married woman and mother of two, is the wife of a driver.
She claimed that the accused, a neighbor, befriended her over three months and assured her that he would marry her after divorcing his wife. Relying on this promise, she entered into a sexual relationship with him.
However, she later alleged that he refused to fulfill his promise, stating that he could not divorce his wife.
Upon reviewing her statement, the Court noted that she had maintained a relationship with the accused for three months. It was further observed that the accused would visit her whenever her husband was away, and they would engage in sexual relations.
“Therefore, it cannot be said that the consent was given by the prosecutrix under some misconception of fact. Moreover, if the FIR is perused carefully and subjected to microscopic scrutiny it would reveal that there are no allegations that the present applicant pressurized the prosecutrix to enter into wedlock under the garb of false promise of marriage,” it added.
The Court also observed that the first information report (FIR) did not suggest that the complainant was coerced into a sexual relationship under a false promise of marriage.
“In such a case, 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,” the Court said it at quashed the case.
