Facilitating Rented House For Victim Doesn’t Establish Intent To Marry; It Displays Intent Of Keeping Her Easily Available For Pleasure: Bombay HC Refuses To Quash Rape Case
|The Bombay High Court observed that mere facilitating a rented house for the victim does not establish an intent to marry and displays the intent of the accused to keep her at a place where she would be easily available for his pleasure.
The Court observed thus in a criminal writ petition preferred by the accused seeking quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(h), 313, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale remarked, “Admittedly, there existed a physical intimate relationship between the parties. As per the statement of the victim, she consented to the relationship upon a promise to marry her. However, right from the beginning, the Petitioner had no intention to marry her. The mere fact of renting various premises for the victim to reside is not an indication of an intent to marry. In fact, it is otherwise. It displays the intent of the Petitioner to keep the victim in a place where she would be easily available for his pleasure at any time of his convenience. Mere facilitating a rented house for the victim does not establish an intent to marry.”
The Bench noted that this case is not one of those cases where there is a bona fide intent to marry the victim and on that assurance, the parties enjoyed intimate relationship but unfortunately the same did not fructify in a marital tie.
Advocate Sana Raees Khan appeared for the petitioner while APP Vinod Chate and Advocate M.A. Khan appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
As per the FIR, the respondent/victim was a divorcee residing with her minor son at a house. She became acquainted with the petitioner/accused as they were residing nearby. The accused secured some employment for her as a junior artist to work in a TV serial and their friendship grew. It was alleged that the accused made a promise to marry the victim and even offered to look after her minor son, begotten of her previous marriage. Believing in his promise, the victim started going out with him and allegedly in March 2016, he took her to a hotel and established sexual relations with her. It was further alleged that he took her to various other hotels where they had sexual relations and in 2018, he rented premises and told her that she should reside in the same. The victim shifted there and the accused used to allegedly reside with her about 2-3 days in a week. The accused continued to extend the assurance regarding marrying her and they continued the relationship.
The victim time and again asked the accused as to when they would be married but allegedly, he started avoiding the topic, leading to arguments between them. As per the victim, the accused assaulted her with fists and kicked her and hence, she refused to reside with him and shifted to her aunt’s house with her son. The accused came there, apologized to her and again promised that they would be married soon. Once again on this assurance, she shifted to another room rented by him and the intimate relationship again resumed. It was contended by the victim that she became pregnant from the accused and hence, insisted that they should get marry at the earliest. However, he refused to marry her and told her to abort the child. According to her, even during the pregnancy, despite her refusal to have sexual relations with him, the accused forcibly raped her. She gave birth to the child but the accused refused to marry her and also denied the paternity of the child. The victim realised that, she was duped and hence she filed the FIR against him.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case said, “It is evident from the contents of the FIR that, the sexual relationship was purely on the assurance of the Petitioner to marry the victim. She clearly states that, the Petitioner even assured her that he would look after her son of an earlier marriage. Despite this, Ms. Khan urges to us that we must appreciate the Petitioner’s defence that, he fully intended to marry her but only the fact about her son made him change his mind. We cannot at this stage analyze the defence of the Petitioner but are required to look into only the averments in the FIR and ascertain prima facie whether the alleged offence is disclosed from its bare reading. We cannot proceed to appreciate the evidence of the parties to establish intent or mala fide and conduct a mini trial at this stage.”
The Court further noted that the case demonstrates an intention of the accused to keep the victim readily available for his pleasure and in any case there was no obstruction at all to their marriage even earlier, but he continued to make mere promises and hence, the version of the victim is fully reliable and is of sterling quality.
“It is in such type of cases that, the Apex Court has distinguished between giving a false promise to marry and committing a breach of promise to marry. The former invites prosecution while the latter may result in acquittal or quashing. We are of the considered opinion that, the facts in the present case are quite distinct from the case of a mere breach of promise to marry. Even the act of the Petitioner in abusing and assaulting the victim when he learnt that, she conceived from him indicate lack of intent right from the beginning”, it enunciated.
The Court observed that the consent of the victim to the sexual relationship, even if presumed to be given, is vitiated by the ‘misconception of the fact’ which was that the victim believed that the accused would marry her and it was on this assurance and promise that she decided to engage in the sexual act.
“It is settled law that in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that inherent powers of this Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash proceedings against the accused.
Cause Title- Pramod Dhanji Purabiya v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:30489-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sana Raees Khan and Aditya Parmar.
Respondents: APP Vinod Chate, Advocates M.A. Khan, Tajammul Khan, and Mizan Khan.