Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.
PRATEEK SOLANKI – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF M.P. – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 45820 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Rape - Quashing of FIR - IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 506 - The court interpreted the definition of rape under IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving lack of consent and mala fide intention, ultimately quashing the FIR due to insufficient evidence of coercion.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her under the pretext of marriage, despite her objections. After a series of interactions and a delayed FIR, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR claiming the relationship was consensual.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecutrix did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the petitioner had no intention of marrying her, thus quashing the FIR.
Issues: Whether the relationship was consensual or constituted rape under the IPC, and whether the FIR should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for a charge of rape to stand, there must be clear evidence of lack of consent and mala fide intention, which was not established in this case.
Result: The FIR and charge-sheet against the petitioner were quashed, and he was discharged from the offence.
ORDER :
1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the First Information Report (FIR) registered at Crime No. 126/2023 dated 27-2-2023, at Police Station Madhav Nagar, District-Ujjain (M.P.), as also the charge-sheet connected therewith, and the subsequent proceedings pending in the trial Court under sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the prosecutrix aged about 24 years, a resident of Ujjain came in contact with the petitioner through some common friends in the year 2021, and started conversing with each other through Instagram, and after sometime the petitioner was also selected in Army, and after around 8 to 10 months, i.e., on 6-9-2021, the petitioner came to Ujjain on leave and met her in her room, where he forced himself on her despite the her objection, he also assured her that he would marry her. Thereafter, he started coming to her room regularly and everyday he used to have sexual intercourse with heron the pretext that he would marry her. After his leave came to an end, he went back on 9-10-2021. He again came to Ujjain on leave from 24-10-2021 to 24-11-2021, and at that time also, he had physical relationship with her despite her protest, and when this relationship came to her family members’ knowledge, they went to petitioner’s house to talk about with his parents about prosecutrix’s marriage with the petitioner to which, they simply refused, and thereafter, the petitioner also stopped talking to her on phone, and again when he came back to Ujjain in the month of January, 2022, he started talking to her and again came to her room where he again committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, and thereafter, he went back to Jaisalmer in the month February, 2022, and subsequently he also blocked her on Instagram, WhatsApp etc. and despite her efforts to talk to him, he refused to talk to her, hence, she made a complaint to police station Madhav Nagar, Ujjain on 14-7-2022. Thereafter, when the family members of the petitioner were called to the concerned police station, they agreed to the engagement of the petitioner with the prosecutrix, and the engagement also took place on 25-7-2022. But, thereafter, again the family members of the petitioner refused to marry their son to the complainant. Thus, the FIR was lodged on 27-2-2023.
3. Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that it was a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, who was a matured woman aged 24 years, and the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of around two years, and even when the petitioner refused to marry the complainant in the month of December, 2021, she again had no difficulty in having physical relationship with the petitioner in the month January and February, 2022.
4. In support of his submission and that it was a consensual relationship and does not amount to rape; counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 903; Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2020) 3 SCC (Cri.) 672; Udham Singh S/o Raghjunath Singh vs. State of M.P. and another, 2023 (2) M.P.L.J. 328 and Mayank S/o Vinod Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and another, 2023 (2) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 123.
5. Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/ complainant on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the prosecutrix was allured by the petitioner to enter into physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and the petitioner being an Army officer ought to have honoured his promise, but he has continuously committed the offence as the complainant/prosecutrix also allowed herself to be exploited a
The court established that consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not automatically constitute rape without evidence of mala fide intent.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of voluntary consent and the absence of deceit or false promises in determining the nature of a relationship and distinguishing b....
Consent obtained by fraud or misconception of fact would be no consent, but a reasoned and deliberate relationship does not constitute deceived consent.
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 misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent under Section 90 IPC; a consensual relationship does not amount to rape.
Marriage can negate prior allegations of rape if the parties have entered into a valid marital relationship, preventing abuse of legal process.
Consent in sexual relationships must be genuinely understood; presenting false pretenses may constitute a misconception but requires clear malicious intent to amount to rape.
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
