The Supreme Court recently quashed a rape case observing that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage and a breach of the promise made in good faith but was not subsequently fulfilled.
The bench comprising of a bench of Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh, made the observation while hearing a case.
The appellant and respondent were in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011 According to the respondent (woman) the consensual physical relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the appellant. The complaint has been filed only in 2016 after three years, pursuant whereto FIR dated 16.12.2016 was registered under Section 376 and 420, IPC.
The court observed, “we hearing learned counsel for parties, we find ex facie the registration of FIR in the present case is abuse of the criminal process.
The parties chose to have physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage. Thereafter also three years passed when respondent No.2 decided to register a FIR. The facts are so glaring as set out aforesaid by us that we have no hesitation in quashing the FIR dated 16.12.2016 and bringing the proceedings to a close. Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself.”
“We are fortified to adopt this course of action by the judicial view in (2019) 9 SCC 608 titled “Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.” where in the factual scenario where complainant was aware that there existed obstacles in marrying the accused and still continued to engage in sexual relations, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR. A distinction was made between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled. This was in the context of Section 375 Explanation 2 and Section 90 of the IPC, 1860.
The Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment is set aside and the proceedings in pursuance to FIR dated 16.12.2016 stand quashed, leaving parties to bear their own costs, ” the court remarked.
Case title: Mandar Deepak Pawar vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr
