The Court quashed a rape case against a man booked on the complaint of a married woman last year.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a married woman cannot Claim consent to engage in physical relations with another man was obtained under the false pretense of marriage [Veerendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice Maninder S Bhatti dismissed a rape case filed against a man based on the complaint of a married woman last year.
Referring to precedents in similar cases, the Court observed,
“The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court postulate that when the prosecutrix is married lady, and therefore, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of the consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of the fact’.”
The accused, who was also married to another woman, approached the High Court after being accused of rape by the complainant. The complainant, a married woman with two children, is the wife of a driver.
She alleged that the accused, who lived in their neighborhood, developed a friendship with her over three months. According to her claims, he promised to marry her after divorcing his wife and, based on this assurance, engaged in a sexual relationship with her.
However, she later alleged that he refused to marry her, stating that he was unable to divorce his wife.
The Court reviewed the complainant’s statement and noted that she had been in a relationship with the accused for three months. It was observed that whenever her husband was away, the accused would visit her, and they would engage in sexual relations.
“Therefore, it cannot be said that the consent was given by the prosecutrix under some misconception of fact. Moreover, if the FIR is perused carefully and subjected to microscopic scrutiny it would reveal that there are no allegations that the present applicant pressurized the prosecutrix to enter into wedlock under the garb of false promise of marriage,” it added.
The Court further noted that the first information report (FIR) did not indicate that the complainant was induced into a sexual relationship based on a false promise of marriage.
“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,” the Court said it at quashed the case.