Each Breach Of Marriage Cannot Be Treated As False Promise Of Marriage: Karnataka HC Quashes Rape Case
|The Karnataka High Court, while quashing a rape case, observed that each breach of promise of marriage cannot be treated as a false promise to prosecute a person for offences punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
While quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the accused, the Court said at best it could be a breach of promise of marriage, which would not become an offence.
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna relied on Naim Ahamed v. State of NCT of Delhi (2023 SC) and discussed what would be the false promise of marriage and promise of marriage and observed, “One cannot deny possibility of the accused making promise with all seriousness to marry the complainant. The circumstances beyond the control would have prevented to fulfill the promise. It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise of marriage as a false promise, and to prosecute a person for offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The observations of the Apex Court would clearly become applicable to the facts of the case at hand. The 1st petitioner also did not perform the alleged act on false promise of marriage, it is allegedly performed on the date of the betrothal ceremony. Therefore, it cannot be construed to be a false promise of marriage. It at best could be a breach of promise of marriage, which would not become an offence under Section 376 of the IPC.”
Advocate Mahesh Kiran Shetty S. appeared for the Petitioners whereas HCGP Thejesh P. appeared for the Respondents.
The Petitioner, working in the USA, got engaged to the Complainant after meeting through an online matrimonial website. The Complainant asked the Petitioner to transfer Rs. 4 Lacs to invest in some money-earning fund. On the day of the engagement, it was alleged that the Petitioner forced the complainant to indulge in sexual intercourse, on the ground that the marriage of the Petitioner with the complainant had been agreed.
Later, the engagement was broken, and the complainant filed a complaint alleging the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Petitioner and Sections 417, 420, 109 and 504 of the IPC against other family members of the Petitioner.
The Court discussed the interplay between the offence of rape and a consensual sexual relationship, both on the false promise of marriage and breach of promise of marriage and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State Of Maharashtra (2019 SC), which has distinguished between rape and consensual sexual relationship.
The Court held, “The afore-quoted were all cases where the relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix was consensual and the allegation was that of offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC for rape. The Apex Court delineates inter-play between the offence of rape and a consensual sexual relationship, both on false promise of marriage and promise of marriage. In the case at hand, as observed hereinabove, there was no false promise of marriage. The intention was to get married, as betrothal ceremony takes place. Therefore, it cannot be brought under the ambit of false promise of marriage.”
As regards the alleged offence of cheating against the family members of the Petitioner, the Court said that merely because the engagement broke it could not amount to an offence of cheating against the Petitioner or his family members and therefore, the Court refused to permit the trial to continue any further, as permitting it, prime facie, would become an abuse of the process of law, resulting in patent injustice.
“It is in such cases, the Apex Court in plethora of cases directs this Court to step into exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and obliterate the crime against the accused, failing which, it would become a misuse and abuse of the process of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice.”, the Court noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings pending before the Magistrate.
Cause Title: Santhosh Shetty and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Mahesh Kiran Shetty S.
Respondents: HCGP Thejesh P. and Advocate P.B. Umesh