False promise not the same as inability to keep word: Madhya Pradesh HC

BHOPAL/JABALPUR: The Madhya Pradesh high court has dismissed the petition of a 21-year-old man who had sought quashing of an FIR by his 26-year-old girlfriend, who accuses him of rape on the pretext of marriage. The petitioner argued that it was consensual sex and the complainant can't accuse him of rape since she is an adult.
The HC, citing earlier Supreme Court orders, made a distinction between a "false promise given on the understanding by the maker that it will be broken", and "breach of a promise that is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled".
Justice Sujoy Paul has written in his judgment that the SC has observed there is a distinction between "mere breach of promise, and not fulfilling a false promise". "Thus, the court must examine whether at an early stage a false promise of marriage was made by the accused and whether the consent involved was given after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence. There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused.
'Consent taken on false promise...'
And not solely on account of misrepresentation made to her by the accused, or where an accused on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen, or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her, despite having every intention to do so. Such cases must be treated differently," the Supreme Court had said.
Justice Paul said that in this case, the complainant's statement under Section 161 and 164 of CrPC and the FIR show a clear allegation that the appellant had given a false promise of marriage to the complainant right from inception (of the relationship).
"On that pretext, the complainant developed sexual relations with the appellant. Thus, the present case is one where 'consent' of a woman appears to have been taken on the basis of a false promise. In that event, the present case does not fall within the ambit of such cases where promise initially given was bona fide, but because of subsequent events it could not be translated into reality. In this backdrop, this court is unable to hold that it is a fit case for interference on the FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC," Justice Paul said.
"The application fails and is hereby dismissed. It is made clear that this court has not made any conclusive opinion on the merits of this case," he added. TNN