'Consensual Relationship Culminated In Marriage': Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused Of Rape By Giving False Promise To Marry
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against man accused of raping a woman by giving false promise of marriage as it found that it was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage.
An FIR was filed by the complainant against the appellant on the accusations of rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC). Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR, which was dismissed.
Allowing his appeal, a Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that “The relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant, the factum of marriage was admitted. Therefore, on the face of it, the allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage. Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellant.”
AOR Kedar Nath Tripathy appeared for the appellant while AAG Ardhendumauli Prasad appeared for the respondents.
The complainant had claimed that the appellant, who was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi, had assured his daughter ( the victim) of marriage. But when the marriage proposal was declined by the appellant’s family, the complainant was threatened by the appellant's relatives. The complaint further asserted that under the victim's pressure, the appellant got a fraudulent marriage certificate prepared from an Arya Samaj Mandir.
The High Court had granted interim relief restraining the police from taking the appellant into custody, with a condition for the appellant to join the investigation. It was recorded that the marriage between the appellant and the victim had happened, however, the appellant did not fulfill his matrimonial obligations, leading to a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The Supreme Court observed that the notice issued by the advocate of the victim acknowledged her as the wife of the appellant. The relationship between the appellant and the victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. The Court held that the allegations in the FIR lacked sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant.
The Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the victim was consensual, culminating in marriage. The allegation of a physical relationship being maintained on the pretext of a false promise of marriage was deemed without merit, given the acknowledgement of the marriage in legal notices.
The Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court and quashed the FIR against the appellant.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 5)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Kedar Nath Tripathy, Advocates Tripurari Ray, Yatish Mohan, and Susanta Muduli.
Respondents: A.A.G. Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Shaurya Sahay, Advocate Ananya Sahu
