Nagpur High Court Dismisses Rape Case: Breach of Marriage Promise Not Sufficient Ground
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant verdict by quashing a rape and criminal intimidation case against two men from Jalna. In a detailed judgment, the court ruled that a "mere breach of promise" to marry is insufficient to constitute the offence of rape under Indian law.
Case Background and Allegations
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke allowed a criminal application filed through counsel Raheel Mirza, setting aside the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Dhantoli police station. According to the complaint lodged on October 16, 2020, the 36-year-old woman, who operated a tiffin service, became acquainted with the first accused in December 2018.
The woman alleged that the accused proposed marriage and maintained a physical relationship with her until May 2019 based on that promise. She claimed he later refused to marry her. The second accused was charged with visiting her residence with ₹20,000 and threatening her not to contact his brother, who was the first accused.
Legal Arguments and Court Observations
Defense counsel Raheel Mirza argued that the relationship was consensual between two adults and pointed out that the FIR was filed nearly a year after the alleged refusal to marry, with no explanation for the delay. The prosecution countered that consent was obtained under a "misconception of fact", contending the promise of marriage was false from the beginning.
After examining the FIR and investigation papers, the court observed that both parties were adults who "know the consequences of their act" and continued the relationship for more than a year. Justice Joshi-Phalke noted, "The complainant is a grown-up woman and intelligent enough to understand the importance and consequences of the act she was consenting to."
Supreme Court Precedent and Legal Distinction
Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Maheshwar Tigga versus State of Jharkhand, the court reiterated that under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, a consent given under a misconception of fact is not valid consent in the eyes of law. However, the court clarified that such misconception "has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a long period of time."
The court made a crucial distinction between a false promise made with no intention to marry and a subsequent failure to fulfill a genuine promise. The judgment stated, "there is a difference between false promise and committing breach of promise", concluding that "mere breach of promise is not sufficient to attract the offence."
Additional Charges and Final Ruling
Regarding the second accused, the court termed the allegation of offering ₹20,000 and issuing threats as inadequate to sustain a charge under criminal intimidation. The criminal application was accordingly allowed, and the FIR was completely quashed.
Key Takeaways from the High Court Verdict
- The relationship appeared consensual between two adults
- The FIR was lodged nearly one year after the alleged refusal to marry
- The delay in filing the complaint was noted as unexplained
- Supreme Court ruling in Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand was cited
- Consent under "misconception of fact" must be proximate in time
- Allegations against the co-accused were termed insufficient for criminal intimidation
This judgment reinforces legal principles regarding consent in adult relationships and clarifies the distinction between breach of promise and criminal deception in marriage-related cases.
