Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 166
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J
PRABHAT PRATAP RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-2143/2023
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage constitutes a misconception of fact, vitiating the consent and establishing a prima facie case of rape.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375 and 376 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations of rape based on false promise of marriage - Court held that consent obtained under misconception of fact vitiates consent - Prima facie case established against petitioner for commission of rape. (Paras 47, 48)
(B) Consent - Distinction between false promise and breach of promise - Consent given under misconception of fact is not valid - The court emphasized the need for a two-pronged inquiry to determine the nature of consent. (Paras 31, 34)
Facts of the case:
The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner established a physical relationship with her under the pretext of marriage over several years, ultimately refusing to marry her, leading to the filing of an FIR for rape. (Paras 1, 9, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclosed a prima facie case of rape as the consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage. (Paras 47, 48)
Issues: Whether the consent given by the prosecutrix was valid or vitiated by a misconception of fact regarding the promise to marry. (Paras 28, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that consent obtained through a false promise to marry constitutes a misconception of fact, thus vitiating the consent. (Paras 31, 34)
Result: Petition dismissed.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagari k Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)] seeking quashing of the FIR bearing No. 228/2016 dated 9 th May, 2016, registered against the petitioner under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “ IPC ”) at Police Station North Rohini, Delhi and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Court, New Delhi (hereinafter “ASJ”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
a) The prosecutrix met the petitioner for the first time through a mutual friend, namely Mr. Ali Imran, in the year 2012. After a few days, a party was organized by Mr. Ali Imran, where the petitioner met the prosecutrix for the second time and allegedly gave a marriage proposal to her.
b) It is stated in the FIR that the petitioner used to frequently call the prosecutrix and ask her about the decision of marriage. After a few days, the prosecutrix believing that the petitioner has really fallen in love with her, agreed to marry him. Thereafter, the petitioner and the prosecutrix started meeting each other frequently and going out for dinner/lunch.
c) In July 2012, the petitioner allegedly took the prosecutrix to his apartment and asked for her consent to indulge in physical intimacy with her, while promising to marry her. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix agreed to establish physical relationship with the petitioner based on the promise of marriage made by him.
d) In August 2013, pursuant to securing a new job, the prosecutrix moved to Pune. After shifting to Pune, the petitioner and the prosecutrix used to visit each other in their respective cities. It is alleged that the petitioner in his conversations with the prosecutrix, always used to promise to marry her. It is further alleged that the petitioner told the prosecutrix that his parents have agreed for their marriage and that they will get married at a later point in future.
e) In August 2014, the petitioner got a job in Gurgaon and subsequently in October 2014, the prosecutrix visited the petitioner. During her visit, it is alleged that the petitioner took the prosecutrix to his friend’s house in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi, where they both stayed the night and the petitioner forcibly made sexual relations with her while also promising to marry her.
f) It is alleged that the prosecutrix repeatedly kept on asking the petitioner about their marriage but the petitioner would always avoid the issue by saying that they will get married later. Subsequently, the prosecutrix got a job in Gurgaon and when she informed the petitioner about the same, he allegedly forbade her from coming to Gurgaon and instead asked her to look for a job in Bangalore.
g) The prosecutrix observed that the behaviour of the petitioner had changed and also that the petitioner had started speaking to her less often than earlier. In August 2015, the petitioner ended his relationship with the prosecutrix and informed her of his decision of not marrying her.
h) It is alleged that the petitioner was in a relationship with another person since February, 2015. When the prosecutrix enquired about the same, the petitioner asked her to meet him at Connaught Place, New Delhi. It is alleged that the petitioner took the prosecutrix from Connaught Place to his friend’s house in Mukherjee Nagar. However, as the said house was locked, he took her to another friend’s house in Rohini, Delhi, where they stayed for a few hours. It is further alleged that the said friend left the house for a while and subsequently, the petitioner forcibly made sexual relations with her, while also reiterating his promise to marry her.
i) The prosecutrix met the petitioner again in the second week of October, 2015 in Ghaziabad, where the petitioner again refused to marry the prosecutrix.
j) Thereafter, on 9 th May, 2016, the in
