Far-fetched to term extramarital affair as 'rape on pretext of marriage': Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a rape case filed by a married woman against a man with whom she had an extramarital relationship for over five years..Both the complainant-woman and the accused-man were married to others and had children out of their respective marriages when they started an extramarital affair around 2016. However, the woman later filed a criminal case against the man alleging that he had raped her since he had not fulfilled a promise to marry her after divorcing his wife. She argued that she had engaged in a physical relationship with the accused man based only on this promise. Justice Sumeet Goel of the High Court, however, opined that the woman's allegations of rape were far-fetched."Even if the consenting adults, at some point in their relationship, thought about parting with their wedded partners to proceed towards legalizing their extramarital relationship; while one of them decides to not proceed with the idea, it may very well lead to utter disappointment for the other person in the extramarital affair but it would be sheer far fetched to term the consensual extramarital relation as anything but that," Justice Goel said. The High Court further observed that it was preposterous to file such rape cases which were hinged on convoluted expectations from men."For a married woman, who has willingly formed consensual extramarital relationship with a man, wherein the said man is married to another woman with children born out of the wedlock, it is seemingly preposterous to expect that the said man would divorce his wife to marry her, while she continues in her marital relationship and family life with children. The convoluted expectations placed upon the man and the accusation of having sexual relationship on pretext of marriage are seemingly duplicitous as well as disparaging much less culpable to invite criminal prosecution," the High Court said. .The judge proceeded to emphasise that in rape cases that involve either a promise to marry or extramarital affairs, the Court must consider all facts and circumstances before arriving at conclusions.It should take into account the age, education, profession, social and economic background of the accused and the victim.The Court emphasized that each such case is unique and cannot be judged by a strict, exhaustive set of guidelines."It is neither axiomatic nor fathomable to lay any exhaustive set of guidelines in this regard as every case has its own peculiar factual matrix", the Court said in its June 26 order..The Court was dealing with a petition filed to quash criminal proceedings in a rape case filed by a woman in 2021 against a man with whom she had an extramarital affair. Both parties were married to others and in their 50s when the criminal case was filed.While the woman claimed that her partner raped her on the pretext that he would eventually marry her, the man asserted that their relationship was a consensual one.After hearing rival allegations, the Court concluded that the physical relationship between the two parties was not forced and that the allegations of rape appeared to be false."The parties were in a relationship for about 5½ years. They both were married separately, having their own fully grown-up children from their respective legally marital relationships. Complainant herself is a lady of advanced age of 51 years at the time of lodging of the present FIR. In these circumstances it cannot be legally and validly construed that there was any alleged promise to marry on part of the petitioner, which made the complainant vary her stand and communicate her consent to make physical relations with the petitioner," the Court observed..The High Court proceeded to discharge the accused man and close the criminal case filed against him. .Criminal charges should not be framed against an accused unless there is grave suspicion: High CourtIn the same judgment, the High Court also made pertinent observations on the considerations that should guide a trial court while framing charges in a criminal case. "The Court is required to see whether from the material placed before it, a strong suspicion is made out against the accused ... it is not suspicion but grave/strong suspicion that will call for a person to be arraigned as an accused," the High Court said. The Court added it is not possible to formulate any straightjacket formula. Nevertheless, it framed the following illustrative guidelines to be kept in mind while deciding whether a criminal complaint should proceed to the stage of trial. The trial court must keep in mind that the framing of charges is a significant facet of criminal proceedings, which should be carried out in an assiduous manner, and not in a ritualistic or lackadaisical manner. The trial court should not behave like a post office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but should consider the interests of all concerned - the prosecution (the society), the victim/ complainant, the accused and the interest of justice, above all. While considering the question of framing charges, the trial court has the power to sift and weigh material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The court, however, ought not to make a roving enquiry. While sifting through the material placed before it, the court ought to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total affect of evidence/ documents produced, basic infirmities, legal bar to the prosecution, whether such material is opposed to common sense, whether the allegations are patently absurd or inherently improbable, whether the continuation of the trial is abuse of the law, etc. Where the material produced before the court discloses grave or strong suspicion, which would justify the framing of charges against the accused. Where such material shows that two views are equally possible and the material gives rise to "some suspicion but not grave/strong suspicion", the court ought not to frame charges against the accused..Advocates Munish Kumar Garg, Bhawna Thakur and Tanuj Goyal Tohana appeared for the petitioner (accused). Deputy Advocate General Mahima Yashpal for represented the State of Haryana. Advocates Ritu Singh Mann and Jannat Singh Mann represented the complainant.