Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR in Consensual Relationship Case: XXXX vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024)

Date of the Judgment: March 6, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 181
Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.
Can a consensual relationship between adults, where one party is already married, be considered rape based on a false promise to marry? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, highlighting the importance of mature consent and the potential for misuse of legal provisions. The court quashed a rape FIR, emphasizing that a mature woman’s consent in an ongoing relationship cannot be deemed as given under a misconception of fact. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complainant who was in a relationship with the appellant. The complainant, already married with a 15-year-old daughter, was living separately from her husband due to marital disputes. The appellant, who was initially a tenant in the complainant’s house, allegedly developed a relationship with her. The complainant claimed that the appellant promised to marry her, and they engaged in physical relations. However, the complainant’s divorce from her first husband was finalized much later than she initially claimed. The appellant was accused of rape when he later refused to marry her.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the FIR filed against him. The High Court dismissed the petition. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of rape, specifically when committed by a person in a position of authority or in a fiduciary relationship or by a public servant. The relevant part reads, “whoever, being a police officer, commits rape on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him or on a woman in the premises of any police station or on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him or on a woman in the premises of any police station.”
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section pertains to the offense of criminal intimidation.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the recording of confessions and statements.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The FIR is an abuse of the legal process.
• The complainant, a married woman with a grown-up daughter, claims to have had physical relations with the appellant with the consent of her family, which is unbelievable.
• There was no question of a promise to marry at that stage.
• There are significant discrepancies between the FIR and the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
• The relationship was consensual.
• The complainant falsely claimed to have divorced her first husband on 10.12.2018 and married the appellant in January 2019, while the divorce decree was actually issued on 13.01.2021.

State’s Arguments:

• A charge-sheet has been filed after investigation.
• The courts are slow to quash FIRs at this stage.
• The FIR clearly alleges rape on a false promise to marry.
• At the stage of quashing, only the contents of the FIR should be considered.

Complainant’s Arguments:

• She was in a disturbed matrimonial life and living with her parents.
• The appellant, a tenant in their house, took advantage of her situation.
• She fell into his trap due to his advances and false promise to marry.
• They had even married in a temple in January 2019, with her family’s knowledge.
• The appellant had nominated her in an insurance policy.
• A clear case of rape on false promise to marry is made out.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the FIR registered against the appellant under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) should be quashed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 89]: The Supreme Court relied on this case, where a similar issue of rape on false promise to marry was considered. The Court held that a married woman having a consensual relationship could not claim to have acted under a misconception of fact.
• Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293]: This case was cited by the appellant in support of their arguments.
• Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision related to rape.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision related to criminal intimidation.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The court considered this provision related to the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The court considered this provision related to the recording of confessions and statements.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 89], holding that a similar situation of a married woman in a consensual relationship cannot be considered rape on the basis of a false promise to marry.
• The Supreme Court considered Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2013) 9 SCC 293], cited by the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The complainant was a mature, married woman who was aware of the implications of her actions.
• The relationship was consensual, and there was no evidence of coercion or deception at the initial stage.
• The complainant had misrepresented the date of her divorce from her first husband.
• The court emphasized that the complainant’s consent was not given under a misconception of fact.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reasoned that the complainant, being a mature woman, was fully aware of the implications of her actions. The court emphasized that the relationship was consensual, and the complainant’s consent could not be considered as given under a misconception of fact. The court also noted the discrepancies in the complainant’s statements, particularly regarding the date of her divorce. The court found that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law and quashed it.

The court quoted from Naim Ahamed’s case: “In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant.”

The court further stated, “Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as ‘rape’ by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far.”

The court also noted, “The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to.”

Key Takeaways

• Consensual relationships between adults, even if one party is married, cannot be automatically categorized as rape based on a false promise to marry.
• The maturity and awareness of the complainant are crucial factors in determining whether consent was given freely.
• Courts should be cautious in cases where a complainant misrepresents facts or has a history of inconsistent statements.
• The judgment underscores the importance of not misusing legal provisions to settle personal scores.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside. The FIR No.52 dated 11.12.2020, registered under Section 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC at Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Satna (M.P.) and all subsequent proceedings thereto are quashed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a consensual relationship between mature adults, where one party is already married, cannot be automatically considered rape on the basis of a false promise to marry. This judgment reinforces the principle that the maturity and awareness of the complainant are critical factors in determining the validity of consent. The judgment also highlights that the courts must be vigilant against the misuse of legal provisions to settle personal disputes. This case clarifies that a false promise to marry cannot be used to establish rape in cases where the relationship was initially consensual and the complainant was fully aware of the circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court quashed the rape FIR against the appellant, emphasizing that the complainant, a mature, married woman, had entered into a consensual relationship. The court highlighted that her consent was not given under a misconception of fact, and the FIR was an abuse of the legal process. This judgment underscores the importance of mature consent and the need to prevent the misuse of legal provisions.