When Relationship Continued For A Prolonged Period, It Cannot Be Said That It Was A Result Of A Promise To Marry: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Court said that when a physical relationship continues for years, it becomes difficult to hold that consent was given under a false promise of marriage.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has discharged a man accused of rape, cheating, and dowry demand, holding that the complainant’s prolonged consensual relationship with the accused over five years weakens the claim that she was induced to consent based on a false promise of marriage. The Court held that the material on record did not justify the framing of charges.
A Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed, “The victim stated that the marriage was settled in the year 2014. The physical relations were maintained in 2015. The date of marriage was fixed on 28.2.2017, but the marriage could not be performed due to a mishap. The marriage was fixed in the year 2019, and a demand was made in 2021. There is not even a single averment made in the complaint that the accused had refused to marry the victim or that the marriage between them has become impossible. The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry.”
The Bench further held, “There was no material for framing charges in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 417 of the IPC.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate B.L. Soni, while Additional Advocate General Ajit Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Complainant alleged that the accused and his family settled her marriage with him in 2014. A betrothal ceremony was held in 2015. The Accused and Complainant began a sexual relationship around the same time, which continued over the years. She claimed that she was taken to hotels by the accused, physically assaulted when she refused intercourse, and that the date of marriage was repeatedly postponed. In 2021, a demand of 5 lakhs and a vehicle was allegedly made by the Accused’s parents, following which an FIR was registered.
The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused filed a revision petition before the High Court, arguing that the relationship was consensual and no false inducement or material was showing direct demand of dowry by him.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that it was a settled position that at the stage of framing of charges, the Trial Court is not required to assess whether the prosecution’s case will lead to conviction, but only whether a prima facie case exists.
The Court then considered whether a charge of rape based on a false promise to marry could be sustained when the relationship had continued over five years. Referring to the Complainant’s own account and the material on record, the Court held that the prolonged relationship militates against the claim of vitiated consent.
“The victim stated that the marriage was settled in the year 2014. The physical relations were maintained in 2015. The date of marriage was fixed on 28.2.2017, but the marriage could not be performed due to a mishap. The marriage was fixed in the year 2019, and a demand was made in 2021. There is not even a single averment made in the complaint that the accused had refused to marry the victim or that the marriage between them has become impossible. The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was not justified in framing the charges for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC,” the Court observed.
With respect to the cheating charge under Section 417 IPC, the Court examined the prosecution’s case and noted that the allegation was based on a claim that 5 lakh had been taken during the construction of the house. However, the FIR and witness statements did not support this. The Court said, “There is no recital in the FIR or the charge sheet that ₹5 lacs were demanded at the time of construction of the house... Therefore, there was no material for framing charges in the commission of an offence punishable under Section 417 of the IPC.”
As for the dowry demand, the Court held that the statements attributed the demand to the Accused’s parents, not the Accused himself. It said, “It is apparent that as per the statements of eyewitnesses, the demand was not made by Raj Kumar, and there was no material before the learned Trial Court to frame charges against the petitioner/accused Raj Kumar for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and held that the Trial Court erred in framing the charges against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the revision petition and would not affect any future proceedings.
Cause Title: Raj Kumar Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:12858)
