Possibility of Consent Under Misconception of Fact is Ground to Deny Quashing of FIR for Rape on False Promise of Marriage: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-06-03

Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash Rape FIRs, Cites Possibility of Consent Under 'Misconception of Fact'

JODHPUR: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant order, has dismissed petitions seeking to quash two separate FIRs accusing a man of raping two women on the false pretext of marriage. Justice Kuldeep Mathur , while refusing to interfere with the investigation, held that the court, under its inherent powers, cannot rule out the possibility that the complainants' consent for sexual relations was obtained under a "misconception of fact" and that the FIRs could not be termed frivolous at this stage.

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by Arpit Naraniwal challenging three FIRs lodged against him and his father by two different women, identified as 'S' and 'A', in Bhilwara.

Background of the Cases

The court dealt with three distinct FIRs filed against the petitioner:

1. FIR by Complainant 'S': Alleged that Arpit Naraniwal established a physical relationship with her over several years on a false promise of marriage, leading her to attempt suicide. She also claimed he deceitfully made her sign a live-in relationship document.

2. FIR by Complainant 'A': Alleged that she entered into a physical relationship with the petitioner in 2021 based on his promise to marry. He later allegedly threatened to leak her obscene photos and videos when she resisted his advances.

3. Third FIR (against Arpit and his father): Filed by 'S', alleging a conspiracy where both the petitioner and his father lured her with a renewed promise of marriage, only for the petitioner to have sexual relations with her again and then refuse to marry. The court disposed of the petition challenging this FIR, as the police submitted that a negative final report (closure report) was being prepared.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Arguments: Senior Advocate Manish Shishodiya, representing Arpit Naraniwal , argued that the FIRs were lodged with significant delay and were a malicious attempt to extort money. He contended that the allegations pointed towards a long, consensual relationship, not rape.

The most crucial argument was the "somersault" by the police. The counsel highlighted that in earlier proceedings, the Public Prosecutor had informed the court that investigations into the first two FIRs had concluded with negative final reports, indicating no offence was made out. However, the investigation was later transferred, and new officers found a prima facie case against the petitioner. This, the counsel argued, made the investigation "shoddy" and suspect, warranting the quashing of the FIRs to secure the ends of justice.

Complainants' and State's Arguments: The prosecution and the counsel for the complainants countered that the petitioner had, from the very beginning, no intention of marrying the women. They argued that the consent was obtained deceitfully under a "fictitious assurance of marriage," which is not valid consent under Section 90 of the IPC. They pointed to the petitioner's actions, such as coercing complainant 'S' into signing a live-in agreement after her suicide attempt, as evidence of his mala fide intent. They asserted that the police have now collected sufficient material to establish a cognizable offence, and the court should not stifle the investigation.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Kuldeep Mathur , after perusing the case diaries and hearing the arguments, delved into the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. Citing the landmark judgment in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , the court reiterated that these powers must be used sparingly, especially when an FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

The court observed that a distinction exists between a breach of promise and a promise that was false from its inception. The judgment noted:

"This Court having carefully perused the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIRs, is of the considered view that possibility of the petitioner obtaining consent for sexual relations from the complainants under misconception of fact cannot be ruled out... At this stage, this Court is not expected to either scan the entire material available on record or to record its finding on each of the charges levelled against the petitioner."

The court acknowledged the intermittent nature of the relationships and the societal pressures that often lead to delays in reporting sexual assault. It found merit in the complainants' assertions that they repeatedly re-entered the relationship based on renewed promises of marriage.

Addressing the petitioner's questionable conduct, the court remarked:

"The document of live-in relationship was got prepared by the petitioner which prima facie indicates that he was giving a fictitious assurance to the complainant that he has started living with her as husband."

Final Decision

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that it could not label the FIRs as false or malicious, especially since the investigating agency had found material indicating the commission of an offence. Finding no grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, the court dismissed the petitions to quash the two FIRs for rape, allowing the police investigation to proceed.