Prosecutrix Intelligent Enough To Understand Consequences Of Moral & Immoral Acts Consented During Subsistence Of Earlier Marriage: SC Quashes FIR Alleging Rape By False Promise Of Marriage
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging rape on false promise of marriage holding that the complainant was mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during the subsistence of her earlier marriage.
The complainant had filed an FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC alleging that her tenant (accused) maintained physical relations with her on a promise to marry her.
After the tenant assured the complainant that he would marry her in case she divorced her husband, she divorced her first husband and solemnized marriage with the tenant in a temple. However, despite assurances, the tenant did not solemnize a court marriage with the complainant.
Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age who could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage. In fact, it was a case of betraying her husband.”
AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey represented the appellant, while Advocate Dhirendra Singh Parmar appeared for the respondent.
The Court noted that the parties started having physical relations after the consent of the complainant “which is clearly evident but also of the parents and daughter of the complainant as they were living in the same house, where allegedly the appellant and the complainant were having physical relations.”
The Court remarked that the marriage between the tenant and the complainant was solemnized in a temple in 2019. However, the date of divorce as claimed by the complainant was “belied from the copy of the decree…where divorce by mutual consent was granted to the complainant and her husband vide judgment dated 13.01.2021.”
Further, the complainant had re-married with the tenant during the subsistence of her earlier marriage. “It is evident that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017,” the Court held.
The Court held that the complainant was not an immature person who could not foresee her welfare or make the right decision. The complainant even had a child who was 15 years old and similarly, the complainant herself was 10 years older than the tenant.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: XXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 181)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey
Respondent: AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker and Mohd. Faisal; Advocates Dhirendra Singh Parmar, Rajan Kumar Chourasia and Santosh Narayan Singh