Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
Deepak Kumar Agarwal, J.
Amar Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 46602 of 2022
Decided On : 13-07-2023
False Promise - Quashing of FIR - Sections 376(2)(N), 506 and 34 of IPC - [Section 375, Section 90 of IPC, Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 2071, Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2016 SC 406, Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2021 SC 1405] - The court discussed the distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise, emphasizing that a false promise made with the intention to deceive a woman would vitiate her consent. The judgment highlighted the need for active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act to establish whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry. It also emphasized that the failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to a misconception of fact. The court concluded that the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner made a false promise of marriage and engaged in a physical relationship with her. The petitioner argued that the prosecutrix was in a relationship with him over a significant period of time and her consent was not obtained by misrepresentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix was in a relationship with the petitioner since 2020 and that the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences would be an abuse of process of law. The court quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the prosecutrix's consent in the context of a false promise of marriage and the distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act to establish whether the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising out of a promise to marry. It also highlighted that the failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to a misconception of fact.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR crime No.164/2021 registered at Police Station Seondha, Distt. Datia for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N), 506 and 34 of IPC and its subsequent criminal proceedings in the form of chargesheet.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 28.07.2021 prosecutrix lodged the report alleging that in the year 2017, she was in contact to the present petitioner and in the year 2020, the present petitioner made a marriage proposal consequently thereto she came to the Seondha on 29.06.2020 and stayed in Seondha in a house where the petitioner made physical relationship with her and by making false pretext of marriage. When the prosecutrix told the petitioner to solemnized marriage, the petitioner use to ignore the prosecutrix. Thereafter prosecutrix came back to her house, where proseuctrix regularly speak from the phone to the petitioner. It is further submitted that on 10.07.2021, the prosecutrix again came back to Seondha and thereafter, the petitioner took the prosecutrix in a car and assaulted her, consequently, thereto the FIR has been lodged on 28.07.2021 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(N), 506 and 34 of IPC.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant with mala fide intention just to take undue benefit. FIR is highly belated. The complainant- prosecutrix is a mature lady having three children and she knew the petitioner from the last more than one year. She has made physical relations with the petitioner on her own consent and free will. The prosecutrix was in relationship with petitioner over a significant period of time, therefore, consent of the prosecutrix is not obtained by misrepresentation. Just to take undue benefit she has lodged a false FIR. In the FIR itself prosecutrix has stated that she remained in relationship with petitioner from 2020 and if any woman continues to remain in physical relationship for a long period during which she was free to visit at every place, then it cannot be said that her consent was obtained by misconception of fact. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 2071, Tilak Raj vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2016 SC 406, Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903, Sonu @ Subhash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2021 SC 1405 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Senjeet Singh Vs. State of M.P. and another 2020 (1) MPLJ (Cri.) 260, Abid Ali Vs. State of MP & Anr. passed on 18/5/2017 in M.Cr.C. No.11363/2016 and a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Lilani Vs. The State of M.P. & Anr. passed on 18/7/2019 in M.Cr.C. No.16158/2019 (Indore Bench) as well as the order dated 28th March, 2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case o f Satendra Rathore vs. State of MP and Another passed in MCRC 45389 of 2021.
4. On the other hand, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant by submitting that if a girl has believed the promise made by the offender for a long period and continued with the physical relationship, then it cannot be said that her consent was not obtained by misconception of fact.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. From the plain reading of the allegations made by the prosecutrix in her FIR as well as 164 Cr.P.C. statement, it is clear that she was in relationship with the petitioner since 2020. FIR has been lodged on 28.07.2021. Before lodging the report, prosecutrix has not made any complaint to anybody in this regard.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Gulati (supra) has held as under:-
"
The distinction between a false promise to marry and a mere breach of promise, and the need for active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act to establish whether the consent was vitiated....
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage is vitiated and does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 of IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
