Married Woman Cannot Claim Rape On False Promise Of Marriage: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The case involved a complaint by a married woman with two children, who alleged that the accused, a married man had promised to marry her after divorcing his wife, leading to a consensual sexual relationship.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a married woman cannot allege rape on the grounds that her consent for a sexual relationship was obtained through a false promise of marriage.
The Single Bench of Justice Maninder S. Bhatti quashed a rape case filed against a man by a married woman, holding that such allegations do not fall within the legal framework of consent obtained under "misconception of fact."
“The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court postulate that when the prosecutrix is a married lady, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of fact’,” the Court observed.
Advocate Shreyash Pandit appeared for the Applicant, while Advocate Shailendra Mishra appeared for the Respondent.
The case involved a complaint by a married woman with two children, who alleged that the accused, a married man had promised to marry her after divorcing his wife, leading to a consensual sexual relationship. However, he later refused to marry her, stating he could not divorce his wife.
Upon reviewing the woman's statement, the Court noted that the relationship lasted three months, during which the accused would visit her whenever her husband was away. The Court found no evidence that the accused coerced or misled the complainant into believing he would marry her.
"The FIR, upon microscopic scrutiny, does not reveal any allegations that the applicant pressurized the prosecutrix to enter into wedlock under a false promise of marriage," the Court added.
The Single Bench said, "In such a case, the FIR is required to be nipped in the bud, as the same would entail in the long drawn process of conduct of trial whereas the allegations levelled in the FIR on their face value, do not indicate the commission of offence under the aforesaid sections."
Holding that the allegations did not constitute the offense of rape, the Court quashed the FIR, stating that allowing the case to proceed would result in an unnecessary trial despite a lack of prima facie evidence. "Resultantly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The FIR registered vide Crime No.136/2024 at Police Station Bada Malhar District Chhattarpur and ensued proceedings stand quashed. The applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charges. Bail bonds and Surety bonds, if any, furnished by the applicant also stand discharged," the Court ordered.
Cause Title: Veerendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6370]
Click here to read/download the Order
