Brief Facts
- The second Respondent filed a complaint alleging that the Appellant had made false promises of marriage and engaged in a physical relationship with her starting in 2012. Despite their engagement in 2017, the Appellant later married another woman in February 2018, against which the complaint was filed.
- Hence, Appeal praying for quashing of criminal proceedings was filed in the present case.
Issues
- Whether consent, given under a misconception or false promise, can be considered voluntary or not, as per Section 375 of the IPC?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR lodged against the Appellant under section 376(2), 377, 504 and 506 of IPC along with provisions of ST/SCT Act, 1989. Apex Court found that Appellant and the Complainant were known since 2011 and the conduct of parties show the consensual relationship. The Appellant furnished the copy of the Nikahnam which was confirmed by the witness and even the doctor confirm that the Appellant and his family member used to visit the hospital along with Complainant.
- During the course of proceedings, the Appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- before the Trial Court and the Apex Court further directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. 5,00,000/-. Trial Court was directed to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- in the FDR and the principle to be released once the child of the Complainant attains majority.
- Complainant was set free to claim maintenance from Appellant and exercise other rights in accordance with law.
- “In view of the provisions of Section 375 of the IPC, if the victim of the alleged offence of rape is not under 18 years of age, maintaining a sexual relationship with her consent, is not an offence. As held by this Court in the case of Anurag Soni1, if (2019) 13 SCC 1 the consent of the victim is based on misconception, such consent is immaterial as it is not a voluntary consent. If it is established that from the inception, the consent by the victim is a result of a false promise to marry, there will be no consent, and in such a case, the offence of rape will be made out.”
- “The fact that they were engaged was admitted by the second respondent. The fact that in 2011, the appellant proposed her and in 2017, there was engagement is accepted by the second respondent. In fact, she participated in the engagement ceremony without any protest. However, she has denied that her marriage was solemnised with the appellant. Taking the prosecution case as correct, it is not possible to accept that the second respondent maintained a physical relationship only because the appellant had given a promise of marriage.”
Relevant Paragraph
- 7, 12, 13, 17 and 18