Over 1 year enough time for woman to realise whether promise to marry was genuine or false: Madhya Pradesh High Court quashes rape case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently held that over a year's time is sufficient for a prudent woman to realise whether a promise made by a man to marry her was a false promise from its very inception or whether it was merely a breach of genuine promise [Amar Singh Rajput v State & Anr]. .Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal relied on a number of Supreme Court judgments to highlight that there is a clear distinction between mere breach of promise and giving a false promise to marry. A breach of a genuine promise to marry is not punishable under law. .Only a false promise to marry, made with an intention to deceive a woman, would vitiate the woman's consent, the Court explained. On the other hand, a mere breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise, the Court noted. The observations were made while quashing a rape case filed against a man for allegedly having sexual relations with a woman on a false promise to marry her..In this case, the Court found that the complainant had been in a relationship with the accused for a long time and that she had herself gone to the residence of the accused."Near about more than one year time is sufficient time for a prudent woman to realize as to whether the promise of marriage made by the petitioner is false from its very inception or there is a possibility of breach of promise," the Court said..The Court also questioned why the complainant had continued the relationship when the accused had not acceded to her requests for marriage. "When the petitioner (accused) was not acceding to her request for marriage, then why she continued with a relationship with him till lodging of the FIR. Thus, it is clear that at the most, it can be said that it is a case of breach of promise and, therefore, it cannot be said that the promise made by the petitioner was obtained under fear or misconception of fact," the Court said..By way of background, the FIR alleged that in 2020, the accused had proposed to marry the complainant and then engaged in a physical relationship with her under the false pretext of marriage.The complainant claimed that when she later asked the accused to marry her, he ignored her. Despite this, they continued talking over the phone and later the accused was also alleged to have assaulted her. As a result, the FIR was lodged against him and he was booked for rape and other offences under Indian Penal Code (IPC).Subsequently, the accused moved the High Court challenging the same..The counsel for the accused argued that the complainant filed the FIR with a malicious intent and there was significant delay. He added that the complainant was a mature woman with three children and that she had engaged in a physical relationship with the accused willingly and on her own volition.The State and the complainant countered that there is no consent if a girl continues a physical relationship on believing an offender's promise of marriage for an extended period. .After considering the submissions, the Court found that prosecuting the accused for rape would amount to an abuse of the legal process. It cannot be said that the complainant's consent was obtained by misconception of fact, the Court concluded. At the most, it can be said to be a breach of promise to marry, the Court held.Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused and allowed his petition. .Advocate Sameer Kumar Shrivastava represented the accused, while advocates Nirmal Sharma and Harish Sharma represented the State and complainant..[Read Order]