Physical Relations Based On Promise To Marry Do Not Automatically Constitute Rape: Apex Court
|The case was initiated based on allegations by the prosecutrix that the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under a false promise of marriage.
The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings arising from an FIR (Crime No.1/2019) filed against an appellant accused of rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation under Sections 417, 376, and 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The case was initiated based on allegations by the prosecutrix that the accused had engaged in a sexual relationship with her under a false promise of marriage.
The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix appeared consensual and that the promise to marry was not false at its inception.
The Bench further noted that the promise to marry could not be fulfilled due to intervening circumstances, and the allegations lacked evidence of deliberate intent to deceive.
Court's Observations
"Only because physical relations were established based on a promise to marry, it will not amount to rape. For the offence of rape to be attracted, the following conditions need to be satisfied: first, the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix solely to secure consent for sexual relations without having any intention of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning; second, that the prosecutrix gave her consent for sexual relations by being directly influenced by such false promise of marriage," the Court said.
The Court underscored legal principles established in cases such as Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), reiterating that a false promise of marriage constitutes rape only if it is made with the sole intent of securing consent for sexual relations.
In its Order, the Court remarked, "For the offence of rape to be attracted, the accused must have promised to marry solely to secure consent for sexual relations, without any intention of fulfilling the promise from the beginning. In this case, no such intent is apparent."
The Court criticized the continued prosecution as an abuse of the legal process, emphasizing that no prima facie evidence of deceit existed.
The appellant’s counsel had cited several precedents, including Sonu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), and Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003), to argue that consensual relationships arising out of genuine promises do not constitute rape.
Conclusion
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the High Court's order dated June 29, 2022, and quashed the FIR against the appellant. The Bench concluded that allowing the trial to proceed would be unjustified under the circumstances.
"Under these circumstances, letting the appellant face trial would be nothing short of an abuse of the process of the Court. This cannot be permitted. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated 29.06.2022. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No.1/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 Part I of the IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: Prithvirajan v. The State [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 12663/2022]
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, Advocates M.P. Parthiban (AOR), Bilal Mansoor, Shreyas Kaushal, S. Geyolin Selvam, Alagiri K, P. V. K. Deivendran
Respondent: Advocates D. Kumanan (AOR), Deepa S, Sheikh F Kalia, Veshal Tyagi, Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Shagufa Khan
Click here to read/download the Order