Recording Of Evidence Necessary: Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Man Accused Of Raping Woman On False Pretext Of Marriage
|The Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to quash a case against a man being accused of raping a woman on false pretext of marriage.
The Court was deciding a criminal petition preferred by the accused man under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash the case against him.
A Single Bench of Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi said, “Further defence pleas are that the marriage could not take place due to some subsequent circumstances not within the hands of the petitioner; The victim consciously aware of those consequences and they decided to live separately; Therefore, relationship was broken and hence, it cannot be equated with a false promise. … In the light of above defence pleas, I am of the considered opinion that recording of the evidence is necessary to answer the disputed facts and defence pleas.”
Senior Advocate Mastan Naidu and Advocate P.L. Narasimha Rao appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate L.J. Veera Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) A. Sai Rohith, and Advocate Ramakrishna Akurathi appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the victim presented a report to the Women Police Station in 2022 alleging that she was studying Post Graduation course in Medicine and the petitioner/accused was senior to her. According to her, the accused was after her stating that he loved her and intended to marry her. In 2021, she went to his flat and at that time, the accused alleged to have sexually assaulted her on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter, he continued the promise to marry her and subsequently, he went to his parents.
Later, the accused was not taking the phone call and started avoiding the victim. When she asked him about the marriage, he said that he will not marry her. She intimated to her father and the accused was called and asked to marry her. However, he allegedly refused stating that he had nothing to do with the victim. Resultantly, the case was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 417, 420, and 354(D) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Therefore, the accused sought quashing of the proceedings against him before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… when the above allegations are considered on their face value, primafacie they show that victim consented for the relationship with the petitioner as she sincerely believed his promises to marry, from inception till he left for Vijayawada, as truthful and he marry her. It must be remembered that at relevant point both were co-students in the college and became good friends. Therefore, no reason for the girl to suspect his bona-fides at that time.”
The Court further took note of the petitioner’s contention that he could not marry the victim due to subsequent unforeseen events which are not under his control.
“Truth of these allegations cannot be gone into in a quash petition. … The other pleas raised in the petition are that the relationship between him and the victim was on consensual in nature; The victim consciously aware of the consequences of having sexual relationship and with that kind of knowledge, the victim voluntarily consented for sexual relationship; and therefore, mere breach of promise is not an offence of rape or cheating”, it added.
The Court said that the truth of the defence pleas have to be decided only after recording evidence in the trail.
“It is pertinent to note down that in the FIR as well in the statement of the victim she categorically stated that alleged incident happened in the flat of the petitioner in the month of July, 2021 was against her will and she remains silent on account of promise to marry. There is no material is available before this Court to presume that subsequently they continued sexual relationship”, it also noted.
The Court observed that the question is whether consent given by the prosecutrix was a misconception of fact, or the relationship was consensual be decided only after recording evidence, when the material prima facie show that the alleged consent was obtained by a misconception of fact arising out of a false promise to marry.
“At this juncture, it is pertinent to note down that the Parliament included a Section in BNS, 2023 to deal with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means. Section 69 of BNS 2023, deal with sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, which are on raise and affecting the society”, it remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the case against the accused.
Cause Title- Pamarthi Chaitanyeswar Ganesh v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others