Distinction Between 'Mere Breach Of Promise'' And 'False Promise To Marry': MP High Court Quashes Rape Charges
The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a FIR under Section 482, CrPC on the grounds that the complainant and the Petitioner were living together and in a relationship for a long period. Merely not marrying the complainant would not be sufficient for rape charges if the sexual relationships were consensual.
The Bench headed by Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal said that “On going through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court it is evident that there is a distinction between "mere breach of promise'' and ''giving a false promise to marry''. Only a false promise to marry made with an intention to deceive a woman would vitiate the woman's consent being obtained under misconception of fact, but mere breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise.”
Further, the Court added “When the petitioner was not acceding to her request for marriage, then why she continued with relationship with him till lodging of the FIR. Thus, it is clear that at the most, it can be said that it is a case of breach of promise and, therefore, it cannot be said that the promise made by the petitioner was obtained under fear or misconception of fact.”
Advocate Sameer Kumar Shrivastava appeared for the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor Nirmal Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
In the case, the complainant and the Petitioner were in a relationship. The complainant moved to live with the Petitioner and was involved in a sexual relationship. The Petitioner refused to marry the complainant, after which, she moved back to her home. However, a few months later, she again came to live with the Petitioner.
She later complained to the police and a FIR was lodged under Section 376(2)(N), 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Petitioner. The Petitioner approached the High Court praying to quash the FIR.
The Court after a careful examination of facts and circumstances held that “In the present case at hand, the complainant- prosecutrix was in physical relationship with petitioner for a long period. She herself went with the petitioner to a house in Seondha. Thus, it cannot be said that her consent was obtained by misconception of fact. At the most, it can be said to be a breach of promise to marry. Near about more than one year time is sufficient time for a prudent woman to realize as to whether the promise of marriage made by the petitioner is false from its very inception or there is a possibility of breach of promise.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the charges against the Petitioner.
Cause Title: Amar Singh Rajput V. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Station House Officer Through P S Seondha Distt Datia & Anr.