The Bombay High Court has observed that a mere physical relationship entered into pursuant to a promise to marry does not amount to rape in every case, emphasizing the critical legal distinction between a fraudulent "false promise" and a subsequent "breach of promise."

Allowing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court quashed a Section 376 IPC FIR registered against a tour manager, noting that the relationship between the adult consenting parties turned acrimonious later.

The Court held that for an offence of rape to be made out on the pretext of a marriage promise, the accused must have had a dishonest intention to deceive the woman right from the very beginning solely to satisfy his lust, which was completely improbable here, given the malicious modus operandi and suppressed marital history of the complainant.

The Bench of Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed, "The conduct of Respondent No. 2 makes her entire case doubtful and improbable. It is well settled that, in the case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning should have had no intention to marry the Complainant and would have cheated the Complainant by giving her false promise to marry her only with the view of satisfying his need/lust. Whereas in a case of breach of promise of marriage, one cannot deny the possibility that, the accused might have given promise with all seriousness to marry her and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances beyond his control which prevented him from fulfilling his promise. Even assuming that, the allegation in the FIR are correct, one would have to keep in mind that, the mere fact that the parties indulge in a physical relationship pursuant to promise to marry will not and cannot amount to rape in every case."

Advocate Arjun Kadam appeared for the Petitioner, while APP S. V. Walve appeared for the Respondent-State.

"An offence of rape under IPC would be made out only if the promise of marriage would made by the accused solely with view to obtaining sexual relationship without having any intend to fulfilling the promise from the very beginning itself. The question which would arise and need to be answered is that whether the false promise of marriage have a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relationship", the Court added.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner filed the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him at Sahar Police Station, Mumbai, for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case was initiated on a complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2, who asserted that while she was on a solo tour to Malaysia and Singapore, she developed friendly relations with the Petitioner, who was officiating as the tour manager. It was alleged by the prosecutrix (Respondent No. 2) that the Petitioner proposed marriage to her during the tour, committed acts of molestation, and subjected her to sexual intercourse without her consent on multiple occasions in hotel rooms under the pretext of showing her purchased articles and promising marriage.

The prosecutrix alleged that upon returning to Mumbai, the Petitioner refused to marry her, intentionally induced her to visit the Marriage Registrar Office to buy time, and subsequently terminated all telephonic and personal contact with her, which constrained her to lodge the impugned FIR.

Contentions of the Parties

The Petitioner submitted that the allegations leveled by the prosecutrix were entirely false, concocted, and a clear afterthought, designed with the malafide intent to blackmail and pressurize the Petitioner. It was contended that the access to hotel floors and rooms during the international tour was strictly restricted and digitally controlled, meaning the Petitioner could not have gained entry into the room of the prosecutrix without her explicit consent and active facilitation, which was supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages exchanged between them.

It was further brought to the notice of the Court that the prosecutrix had suppressed her past matrimonial history, having previously contracted marriage on two occasions and filed criminal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against both her former husbands in Karnataka.

It was verified by the State that the prosecutrix was actively avoiding service of the judicial proceedings and possessed at least eight different residential addresses and multiple mobile numbers across Bangalore, Karnataka, which were traced through her involvement in ten other criminal cases.

The State confirmed that while a police team visited her suspected hideouts and her mother refused to divulge details, the prosecutrix later established contact via mobile and email but point-blank refused to accept physical service of the notice, leaving the matter to the discretion of the Court to pass appropriate orders in light of these peculiar facts.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that a chronological evaluation of the record revealed a disconcerting pattern, wherein the prosecutrix (Respondent No. 2) had filed as many as ten First Information Reports (FIRs) since a specific year against various individuals, including instances of invoking Section 376 and Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Bench noted that the very first FIR filed by the prosecutrix was under Section 498A of the IPC, which conclusively established that she was a married woman well before the initiation of the impugned proceedings; furthermore, the accused in that case, as well as in multiple subsequent prosecutions, were acquitted owing to the chronic failure of the prosecutrix to appear and tender evidence.

It was critically observed that the prosecutrix had employed an identical modus operandi across multiple distinct FIRs, wherein she routinely alleged that she met different men during tours or travels, entered into physical relationships under a purported false promise of marriage, and subsequently abandoned the prosecutions by choosing to remain absent during trials.

The Court highlightingly took judicial notice of an order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in a Criminal Petition involving the same prosecutrix, where that Court had not only quashed her second marriage-related FIR under Section 498A but had also issued structural directions to the state police machinery to prevent her from filing future abusive and vexatious complaints.

Relying upon the landmark precedent of the Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Bench observed that the case at hand squarely attracted Categories 5 and 7 of the said judgment, as the allegations were inherently improbable and the criminal machinery was manifestly set in motion with a malicious, oblique motive to harass, pressurize, and potentially blackmail the Petitioner.

It was held, "This is a classic case of malafide and malicious misuse of the process of law for personal benefit. Considering other criminal proceedings and more particularly on perusal of the FIR’s, I find that the allegation of rape on false pretext of marriage even if when taken on its face value cannot amount to the offence of rape. Categories 5 and 7 of the case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan lal (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. I am of the view that, it would neither be just or in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution/FIR or any investigation in respect thereof to continue."

The Bench placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chattisgarh, noting that since the prosecutrix was a mature, well-traveled working woman who was already married, any alleged promise of marriage was legally unenforceable and void under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 4 of the Special Marriage Act; hence, she could not claim that her consent for physical relations was vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the IPC.

The Court distinguished a fraudulent "false promise of marriage" made with an initial intent to deceive from a mere "breach of promise" resulting from subsequent unforeseen circumstances, observing that even when taken at face value, the material on record pointed towards a consensual relationship between two adults rather than the offence of rape.

It was further observed that the prosecutrix had dishonestly suppressed her past matrimonial history and her litigious background in the impugned FIR, which fortified the Court’s finding that the current proceedings were not bona fide but constituted a classic case of gross and malicious abuse of the judicial process for personal benefit.

While reaffirming that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, the Court observed that it was absolutely necessary to invoke this jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and prevent further victimization of the Petitioner.

"Considering the facts of the present case, I am clearly of the view that the powers for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 can be and ought to be exercised in the present case particularly in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 2 has misused and thoroughly abused the process of law", the Court held.

Concluding that the offence alleged was not made out even remotely, the Court deemed it fit to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR, while concurrently issuing exceptional administrative directions to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, to circulate her litigation history to all police stations and mandate a strict preliminary inquiry prior to registering any future crime on her narration.

Cause Title: Manoj Balasaheb Dhanavade v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 2248 of 2023]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Arjun Kadam

Respondent/State: APP S. V. Walve

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: