Relationship Begun During Complainant's First Marriage and Continued After Accused's Marriage to Another Woman Cannot Be Rape: Kerala HC

ERNAKULAM: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has quashed rape charges against a man, holding that a prolonged consensual relationship, even if it involves a broken promise of marriage, does not automatically constitute rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The bench of Justice G. Girish observed that the long cohabitation of the parties, which began while the complainant's husband was still alive and continued even after she learned of the accused's marriage to another woman, indicates the relationship was consensual and not based on a "misconception of fact."

Case Background

The petitioner, Pradeep, sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under Sections 493 (cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage), 496 (marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage), and 376 (rape) of the IPC.

The prosecution's case was that the petitioner befriended the complainant, a widow, in 2009 and initiated a sexual relationship under the pr-omise of marriage. This relationship allegedly began while the complainant's husband was still alive and continued for eight years, even after her husband's death in 2013. The complainant alleged that the petitioner performed a symbolic marriage ceremony and continued the relationship, only to later marry another woman. She continued the relationship with him even after this discovery but filed a complaint when he eventually ended all contact in 2017.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner contended that the relationship was entirely consensual and denied making any promise to marry, arguing that the facts did not constitute the offence of rape. The complainant maintained that her consent was obtained under the false pretext of marriage.

Court's Analysis and Legal Precedents

Justice Girish conducted a detailed analysis of the facts and the established legal principles differentiating between a "breach of promise" and a "false promise to marry."

On Charges of Deceitful Marriage (Sections 493 & 496 IPC): The Court first dealt with the procedural aspect of the charges under Sections 493 and 496 IPC. It noted that under Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C), a court cannot take cognizance of these specific offences based on a police report. Such charges can only be prosecuted upon a complaint filed directly by the aggrieved person. Therefore, the proceedings on these counts were deemed not maintainable.

On the Charge of Rape (Section 376 IPC): The Court's primary focus was on whether the consent given by the complainant was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" amounting to rape. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including Uday v. State of Karnataka and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana , the Court reiterated a crucial legal distinction: > "A promise to marry without anything more will not give rise to misconception of fact... However, the position will be different if it is shown that the accused, with a view to elicit the assent of the victim, gave the false promise of marriage, without having the intention or inclination to marry her..."

Applying this principle, the Court found several aspects of the complainant's own account to be inconsistent with the claim of non-consensual sex. The judgment highlighted the following pivotal points: * The relationship began in 2009, four years before the complainant's husband passed away. The Court found it implausible that her consent during that period was based on a promise of future marriage. * The relationship continued for years after her husband's death. * Most significantly, the complainant continued the sexual relationship even after discovering that the petitioner had married another woman.

From the judgment: > "The statement of the de facto complainant itself would reveal that she maintained relationship with the petitioner even after knowing the aforesaid marriage of the petitioner with another lady. An overall analysis of the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant for a period of more than eight years... would make it clear that the consensual sex between the de facto complainant and the petitioner cannot be termed as rape."

The Court concluded that to establish rape in such cases, the prosecution must prove that the accused had no intention of marrying the victim from the very beginning and that the promise was merely a ploy. This essential element was found lacking in the present case.

Final Decision and Implications

Based on its findings, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed all criminal proceedings against the petitioner in S.C No.802/2019.

The judgment reinforces the legal position that courts must carefully scrutinize the facts of each case to distinguish between genuine cases of rape by false promise and consensual relationships that have soured. The conduct of the complainant, the duration of the relationship, and the circumstances under which it was maintained are critical factors in determining whether consent was truly vitiated.