Supreme Court quashes proceedings in false promise of marriage case: Ms. X vs. Mr. A (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 216

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Rajesh Bindal, J., and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a consensual sexual relationship between adults be considered rape if one party later refuses to marry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue in a case where a woman alleged rape based on a false promise of marriage. The court examined whether the facts of the case met the legal criteria for rape, particularly when the relationship was ongoing and consensual for a significant period. This judgment clarifies the boundaries of consent in sexual relationships and the circumstances under which a promise of marriage can be considered a deception leading to rape. The bench consisted of Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

In 2016, the complainant (Ms. X), while a minor, met accused No. 1 (Mr. A) while preparing for competitive exams. They entered a relationship, and in 2019, Mr. A took Ms. X to his aunt’s house in Chitradurga, where they had sexual intercourse after he promised to marry her. Subsequently, Mr. A took Ms. X to his house and had sexual intercourse with her multiple times. Ms. X became pregnant. Six months into the pregnancy, Mr. A and his brother, accused No. 2, allegedly forced her to undergo an abortion at Krishna Nursing Home, Challakere.

Mr. A later reiterated his promise of marriage, stating it would happen after he completed his Karnataka Administrative Service exam preparation. He threatened Ms. X to keep silent about the abortion, threatening to kill her and himself if she disclosed anything. Mr. A’s parents (accused No. 3 and 4) also assured Ms. X that she and Mr. A would marry after his studies.

On 22nd September 2020, after Ms. X’s parents learned about the relationship and the abortion, they visited Mr. A’s house, requesting the marriage. However, Mr. A and his family refused, calling Ms. X a prostitute from the Scheduled Caste, Madigha. Ms. X initially filed a complaint (Case Crime No. 456 of 2020) on 1st October 2020, stating she was forced to undergo an abortion at Krishna Nursing Home. However, in a restatement, she changed her version, stating that Mr. A gave her Ayurvedic medicine to terminate the pregnancy.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court took cognizance of the charges and initiated criminal proceedings against the accused persons in Special Case (SC/ST) No. 01 of 2021. Aggrieved, the accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Karnataka, seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against all accused persons. The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).

• Section 354D of the IPC: Deals with stalking.
• Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC: Addresses rape committed by a person in a position of authority or trust.
• Section 504 of the IPC: Deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506 of the IPC: Addresses criminal intimidation.
• Section 34 of the IPC: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act: Pertain to offenses of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: Grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Ms. X):

• The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings and conducted a mini-trial instead of focusing on whether the material on record was sufficient to proceed.
• The prosecution had established a prima facie case that Mr. A had a forcible relationship with Ms. X based on a false promise of marriage.
• The material on record indicated that Mr. A had forced Ms. X to undergo an abortion.

Respondent’s Arguments (Mr. A and Others):

• The High Court rightly concluded that the prosecution’s case, even if taken at face value, did not constitute the offenses charged.
• Relying on Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Others [ (2019) 18 SCC 191] and Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032], the High Court correctly held that there was no material to constitute an offense under Section 376 of the IPC.
• Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the legal process and lead to a miscarriage of justice.
• Ms. X was using the legal system to harass the accused and their family.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with stalking.
• Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses rape committed by a person in a position of authority or trust.
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Addresses criminal intimidation.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Pertain to offenses of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2019) 18 SCC 191]: The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reliance on this case to conclude that the facts did not constitute rape.
• Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1032]: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s view that a consensual relationship does not constitute rape even if there was a promise of marriage.
• Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2019) 9 SCC 608]: The Supreme Court used this case to summarize the legal position on “consent” and “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry.
• State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) 335]: The Supreme Court used this case to categorize the circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The complainant’s changing statements regarding the abortion.
• The absence of evidence to prove that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning.
• The consensual nature of the relationship over a long period.
• The principles laid down in previous judgments regarding consent and false promises of marriage.
• The court’s finding that the present case would fall under categories (1), (3) and (5) of the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) 335].

The court emphasized that the allegations in the FIR and the restatement did not, on their face, indicate that the promise by accused No. 1 was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship based on such false promise. The Supreme Court also highlighted the fact that the prosecutrix had changed her version of events, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had correctly applied the law and come to a just finding, warranting no interference. The court reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. However, in this case, the court found that even if the allegations were taken at face value, there were no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

The Court stated, “We find that, in the present case also like the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), the allegations in the FIR so also in the restatement (Annexure P -6) made before the Dy. S.P., Challakere, do not, on their face, indicate that the promise by accused No. 1 was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship on the basis of such false promise.”

The Court also noted, “The version of events given by the prosecutrix in the restatement (Annexure P -6) made before the Dy. S.P., Challakere is totally contrary to the one given in the FIR.”

The Court further added, “We find that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that permitting further proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Key Takeaways

• A sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage does not automatically constitute rape if the promise is not proven to be false from the beginning.
• The consent of a woman in a sexual relationship must involve an active and reasoned deliberation.
• The power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, but can be used when the allegations do not constitute an offense.
• In cases involving allegations of rape based on a false promise of marriage, the courts will examine the facts carefully to determine if the promise was genuinely false from the start and if the relationship was truly non-consensual.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage does not automatically constitute rape if the promise is not proven to be false from the beginning. This case reinforces the principle that consent in a sexual relationship must be active and reasoned. It also reiterates that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly, but can be used when the allegations do not constitute an offense. This judgment does not introduce any new legal principle, but rather reaffirms the existing legal position on consent and false promises of marriage.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings against Mr. A and others. The court found that the allegations in the FIR and the subsequent statements of the complainant did not establish a case of rape under Section 376 of the IPC, as the relationship appeared to be consensual and there was no evidence that the promise of marriage was false from the outset.