Reneging on a promise of marriage does not render a consensual sexual relationship as rape: J&K HC quashes malicious FIR filed to wreak vengeance on the accused

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. quashed an FIR forrape, holding the same to be guided by ulterior motive of settling personal grudges.

Petitioner, who was proposed to be married to respondent 2 were refused for marriage when he came to know of her love affair and physical relationship with someone else. Respondent’s parents insisted for marriage and threatened to implicate him for their daughter’s rape. FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 376 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 alleging that he subjected respondent 2 to sexual assault on the false promise of marriage. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The Court, on reading the contents of respondent  2’s complaint, noted that a bare perusal thereof showed that there was no specific mention of date, time and place of alleged rape. General allegations of sexual relationship had been leveled against the petitioner on the ground that he hadpromised to marry respondent 2.

It was observed that under Section 375(4) RPC inducement is a necessary ingredient in obtaining consent by fraud. There should be some material on record prima facie showing that the girl was induced by accused to such an extent that she was ready to have sexual intercourse with him. Promise to marry cannot be said to be an inducement in all cases. Where there is mere breach of promise of marriage and before breach there is a sexual relationship, that relation is a consensual relationshipand not rape as defined in Section 376 RPC.

The Court remarked that now-a-days there are cases where boy and girl having love affair, indulging into sexual relationship and ultimately ending into a breakup. Undoubtedly that amounts to consensual sexual relationship as they were in love with each other……When a woman is major and educated, she is supposed to be fully aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man before marriage.”

Relying on the judgment in Vineet Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 13 SCC 369 it was held that allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, did not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner. As such, the petition was allowed.[Sunil Kumar v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, CRMC No. 512 of 2017, decided on 14-12-2018]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.