Jharkhand HC Quashes Rape Case For Relationship With Married Woman Based On Alleged False Promise Of Marriage
The Jharkhand High Court held that since the victim was already married when she had a sexual relationship with the Accused, consent could not have been obtained under a ‘false promise to marry’ as per Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court allowed a Criminal Revision Petition of the Accused. The Accused challenged the Trial Court's order dismissing the discharge petition of the Petitioner.
“Victim married with Vikram Chandra Pal in the year 2018 as she was major; still without getting the marriage dissolved by the competent court of law, she established physical relation with the accused though on allurement to marry with her. The victim being the major and married lady she was very well aware in regard to the consequence of the physical relation with another person, more so she had married in the year 2018. Therefore, the consent herein cannot be said to be obtained by the accused under misconception”, a Single Bench of Justice Subhash Chand held.
Senior Advocate Rajeeva Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, Additional Public Prosecutor Abhay Kumar Tiwari appeared for the State and Advocate Sunil Kumar appeared for the Opposite Party no. 2 (Victim).
The informant-victim and the Petitioner were familiar with each other for more than three and half years and used to love each other. In the meantime, Petitioner allegedly allured her to marry and also established physical relations with her several times. He also compelled her not to tell the parents about their physical relations. Thereafter, Petitioner went out to complete his education. In the meantime, the informant-victim was married to another person. Still after the solemnization of the marriage of the informant, the Petitioner remained in contact with the informant. He also emotionally blackmailed her and the relationship between the informant-victim and Petitioner was known to the in-laws of the informant, therefore, they decided to desert the victim. The Petitioner still assured her and asked her to get a divorce from her former husband.
In the year 2019, she also got divorced from her former husband. Since the Petitioner was not of marriageable age, the informant and Petitioner filled out the form before the Registrar of Marriage. Because of the COVID-19 lockdown, the marriage could not be registered, in the meantime, the Petitioner allegedly established physical relations with her. After that, the informant informed her parents about love affairs with Petitioner, but due to the pressure of his parents, Petitioner flatly refused to marry her and she was also criminally intimidated by the parents of Petitioner. A case was registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC against the Petitioner, his brother and his mother.
The Court observed that no legal divorce had been obtained by the victim from her former husband and that any agreement regarding the dissolution of their marriage had no legal value. The Court emphasised that the victim was of legal age when she engaged in a romantic relationship with the Petitioner, who was two years younger than her.
“Indeed, no judicial divorce was taken by the informant-victim from her former husband…This agreement in regard to the dissolution of marriage is nothing but a waste paper which has no evidential value in the eye of law. Since marriage of the victim was solemnized with Vikram Chandra Pal on 26.04.2018; but still after solemnization of marriage, the victim continued in contact and established relation with the accused”, the Court noted.
Based on the accusations presented in the FIR and the evidence gathered by the Investigating Officer, the Court held that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Petitioner committed the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the order.
Cause Title: ‘Y’ v State of Jharkhand
