Supreme Court: Living Like Husband and Wife Doesn’t Constitute Rape on False Marriage Promise

By Legal Wires 5 Minutes Read

The Supreme Court of India recently quashed criminal proceedings in a case where a man was accused of raping and impregnating a woman under the false pretext of marriage. The court ruled that the First Information Report (FIR) revealed a long-term consensual physical relationship, during which the complainant and respondent lived as husband and wife. The decision underscores the importance of assessing the true nature of consent in such cases.

Key Details of the Case

• Case Background
  The criminal appeal stems from a July 26, 2018, order passed by the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR under Sections 376 (rape) and 313 (causing miscarriage without consent) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Complainant’s Allegations
  According to the complainant, one Lalu Yadav established a physical relationship with her under false pretenses, claiming to be her husband. This relationship, known to the complainant’s family, allegedly lasted from 2018 to 2023. During this period, Yadav reportedly impregnated her, made her undergo a miscarriage, and later refused to marry her after securing employment in the Army.
• Allahabad High Court’s Ruling
  The Allahabad High Court ruled that no interference with the investigation could be made unless there was no discernible cognizable offence or statutory restriction preventing the police from investigating the matter.
• Supreme Court’s Stay and Investigation
  The Supreme Court initially stayed the proceedings on December 11, 2018, but modified the order in 2023, allowing the investigation under Section 313 IPC. However, the police found no evidence supporting the claims of abortion, thereby ruling out Section 313.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• Discrepancies in Statements
  The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements—first claiming that the physical relationship was non-consensual, then stating that they lived as husband and wife.
• High Court’s Error
  The Court observed that the High Court had “palpably gone wrong” by not considering whether the FIR indicated a consensual sexual relationship.
• Delay in Filing FIR
  The Court highlighted that there was a five-year delay in filing the FIR, and the details in the FIR showed that the complainant and respondent lived together as man and wife.
• Absence of Misconception
  The Court found that the allegations did not show that the complainant had consented to the relationship under a “misconception of fact,” but rather pointed to a long-term consensual physical relationship.
• No Prima Facie Case for Rape
  The Court ruled that the refusal to marry the complainant did not constitute grounds to accuse the respondent of rape under Section 375 IPC, as there was no evidence of a false promise to marry with the intent of establishing a sexual relationship.
• Quashing of Charges
  As the charge under Section 313 IPC was omitted, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no prima facie case for proceeding with allegations of rape.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have exercised its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. The case highlights the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and allegations of false promises in the context of marriage.

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires