Summary:
The Supreme Court has said if a couple had a consensual relationship, and there was no allegation of a false promise made to the woman at the inception, then it isn’t rape.
The top court quashed the FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by the accused in the guise of a false marriage promise.
.
The Supreme Court has said if a couple had a consensual relationship, and there was no allegation of a false promise made to the woman at the inception, then it isn’t rape.
The top court quashed the FIR registered by a woman alleging rape by the accused in guise of false marriage promise.
A bench comprising Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud and M.R.
Shah said: “There is no allegation to the effect that the promise to marry given to the second respondent (woman) was false at the inception.
On the contrary, it would appear from the contents of the FIR that there was a subsequent refusal on the part of the appellant (accused) to marry the second respondent which gave rise to the registration of the FIR.”
The bench noted the contents of the FIR and the statement of the woman recorded under 164 CrPC (statement before a magistrate) establishes that the relationship between the accused and the woman was of a consensual nature and they were in the relationship for a period of one and half years.
The bench noted that contents of the woman’s statement indicate that she had “voluntarily developed relationship of husband-wife with him”.
The bench said that to establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established.