While granting bail to a 20-year-old accused in a rape case, the Delhi High Court clarified the distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that not every breach of promise can be equated with a false promise of marriage, stressing that each case must be assessed on its individual facts.
“There is a difference between making a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas, in case of breach of promise, the possibility that accused might have given a promise with intent to marry her but subsequently might have encountered certain unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage,” the Court said.
The 20-year-old was accused of repeatedly raping his neighbour over a two-year period under the guise of a false promise to marry her. According to the allegations, he took the complainant to hotels and engaged in sexual relations with her multiple times.
Each time she pressed for marriage, he allegedly evaded the commitment with various excuses. The FIR further stated that they once went to Tis Hazari Courts to get married, but he left claiming he was going to call his parents and never returned.
It was alleged that the complainant tried contacting the petitioner’s parents, but their phones were unreachable.
While granting bail to the accused, Justice Dudeja observed that the relationship between the parties appeared to be consensual.
The Court noted that their WhatsApp chats reflected mutual affection and voluntary participation, rather than coercion or deceit. It further pointed out that messages from the complainant threatening self-harm and pressuring the accused to marry her suggested that the relationship had soured over time and eventually became hostile.
“The Court is mindful of the gravity of the allegations under Section 376 IPC. However, it is equally well established that criminal law cannot be misused as a tool of coercion or retaliation when a consensual relationship breaks down,” the Court observed.
It further stated, “The protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must remain paramount, particularly when the allegations seem exaggerated or driven by ulterior motives.”