In a case pertaining to rape on account of false promise to marriage, the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court in a recent, remarkable, robust and rational judgment titled Radhakrishna Meena v. State of Rajasthan through PP in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4952/2020 connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5612/2020 and 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 78 delivered as recently as on February 23, 2022 observed that married educated women, depending upon the facts of each case, is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage.

The court opined that the consent of a woman under Section 375 of IPC can be held vitiated only on the ground of misconception of fact where such misconception was the basis of her surrender for establishing physical relationship. The court also further opined that a breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise. It was also made clear that to establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it.

To start with, this notable judgment authored by a single Judge Bench comprising of Justice Farjand Ali first and foremost puts forth in para 1 that:
The instant criminal misc. petitions have been preferred by the accused petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No. 36/2020 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Distt. Alwar for the offences under Sections 376-D, 418 and 506 IPC.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then states in next para that:
Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that at the behest of the complainant-respondent no.2, on 2.2.2020 the aforementioned FIR came to be lodged alleging inter alia that the prosecutrix is a jail guard deployed at Central Jail, Bikaner. In the year 2018, she was residing in a rented premises at Jaipur for the purpose of coaching for exams. One Dinesh Meena introduced her to the petitioner. One Siya Ram Meena, resident of village Nathalwada, who happens to be the relative of the complainant was also a tenant at the same premises.

It is stated that said Dinesh Meena frequently used to visit the house where she and Siya Ram were residing and a good relationship had gradually developed between them. Dinesh Meena had taken her mobile number and often used to call on her mobile number. It is alleged in the FIR that Dinesh Meena told the prosecutrix that a boy named Radha Kishan Meena (the present petitioner) is serving in the Department of Customs at Gujarat and would be a suitable groom for her. The prosecutrix narrated all the things to her brother and other relatives.

It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that brothers of the prosecutrix had bluntly refused to get the prosecutrix married with the present petitioner, rather the middleman Dinesh Meena was also sensitized not to make call to her in this regard. It is also alleged in the FIR that thereafter the accused petitioner frequently used to call her and she was coaxed to marry with him, for which ultimately the prosecutrix had consented.

It is alleged that on 18.4.2018, she was called by the petitioner to meet with him, upon which she left her house and went outside the village, where the petitioner met her and she sat as a pillion rider on the motor cycle driven by the petitioner. It is alleged that she wanted to go to Jodhpur for physical examination related to recruitment process and for that purpose she asked the petitioner to drop her at Rajgarh Railway Station, but the accused did not stop the bike and took her away to Malviya Nagar, Alwar at the residence of a relative of accused petitioner.

As per allegations, the prosecutrix was induced by the accused to develop physical relations and she surrendered herself before him on account of promise to marry her. The act of establishing the physical relationship, is alleged to have been done on 19.4.2018 at Malviya Nagar, Alwar at the residence of one Lekh Raj. After the incident, the prosecutrix was taken through a Motor Cycle to Bandikui Station, wherefrom she boarded to Jodhpur for the purpose of her physical examination on the post of Jail Constable.

It is further alleged that after that incident, on several occasions, she was made to establish physical relation with the petitioner on account of the promise that the accused would marry her. Another incident, as shown in the FIR, is that when she was studying at Jaipur, on 18.6.2018, the accused came to her rented house and developed physical relationship with her. It is alleged that though she was not willing to surrender of her own accord but consented to it owing to the promise made by the petitioner that he would marry her, and that is why she submitted herself before the accused. It is further alleged that thereafter on several occasions, sexual inter-course was committed upon her at different places and lastly when she made a protest, she was threatened that an obscene video has been made with the petitioner in a compromising situation and if any report is moved, he will make the video viral in order to disrepute her in the society.

After this incident, she has been continuously subjected to intercourse on account of threat of dire consequences. It is alleged in the FIR that family members of the prosecutrix have also complained to the brother of the petitioner to convince the petitioner to marry with prosecutrix, but to no avail as the accused did not agree to marry with her. It is alleged that she was seduced by the petitioner on the false pretext that he will marry her.

As we see, the Bench then states that:
On the basis of the said report, the afore-mentioned FIR got registered and investigation in the matter is underway.

Be it noted, the Bench then points out that:
A perusal of the record shows that there is not an iota of evidence to show or suggest that right from the inception, the intent of accused petitioner was to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relationship. There are no allegations in the FIR that at what point of time, the petitioner made a false promise to marry the complainant or whether it was done in bad faith or only with an intention to deceive her. The failure of the accused in the year 2020 to fulfill his promise made by him to prosecutrix in the year 2018 cannot be construed to mean that the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the prosecutrix continued to engage in sexual relationship with the petitioner for a long period of two years and several occasions have been reported when she was made to establish physical relationship. Why did the complainant allow the accused to have inter-course with her on different dates, at different places and even at different intervals? It can be manifested from the bare perusal of the FIR that the complainant used to live alone at different places. The accused is not the resident of the same place, rather he was serving in the Department of Customs at Porbandar, Gujarat. There is no material on the basis of which it could be assumed that she was deceived by the accused on account of false promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts as set out in the report, as also in her statements, are taken in their entirety, no offence under Section 375 IPC is made out. The messages exchanged between the parties also suggest that atleast no offence, as alleged, can be brought under the ambit of Section 375 of IPC. The excuses taken regarding consent given under misconception are prima facie appears to be flimsy and unconvincing. As per her own contention, she was supposed to reach Jodhpur to appear in physical exams, instead thereof she went with the petitioner at Alwar in a very clandestine manner; stayed few hours with the accused at Alwar and thereafter proceeded to Jodhpur. As per her allegations, the act of seducement was done at Alwar, Jaipur, Jodhpur and other places.

Quite damningly, the Bench then mentions that:
Indisputably there is a major discrepancy and conflict between the report submitted by the prosecutrix to the Women Commission at Jaipur and the impugned FIR which got lodged after few days of moving the complaint to the Commission. The major alteration & embellishment made in the FIR impugned also casts a serious doubt over the genuineness of allegations. A perusal of a number of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties completely negates the story as set out in the FIR impugned.

It cannot be lost on us that the Bench then enunciates that:
It is revealed from the FIR that the accused had refused to marry with the petitioner; but it is not mentioned at what point of time. However, it reflects that somewhere in the year 2018, the cause of action had arisen to the prosecutrix to sue the petitioner but no action was taken by her; rather, on the contrary, even thereafter she continued her relations with the petitioner. No video clip or other material has been collected or produced by which inference of threat can be drawn. Keeping mum for long in reporting the matter also creates serious doubts in the story. It is not disputed that the family members of the complainant did not agree to solemnize her marriage with the petitioner.

Frankly speaking, the Bench then concedes that:
This is an unfortunate but routine case of a boy and a girl having an affair, indulging into a sexual relationship and ultimately ending into a breakup. Present is one of such cases where the parties had consensual sexual relationship and were in love with each other, however, the relationship become sour by the lapse of time.

Quite forthrightly, the Bench then holds that:
In every case of rape, the act of sexual intercourse must be forcible and without consent of the woman/lady. However, the consent obtained by fraud amounts to no consent and therefore, if the intercourse is done with consent but obtained by fraud, it would amount to rape. If an illiterate woman is given promise to marry and under that promise, her consent is obtained for sexual intercourse, then, it can be said that the consent is obtained by fraud. Here, in this case, the prosecutrix is an educated lady and serving as a lady jail guard. Another instance would be that if consent is obtained by hiding the identity or impersonation, then it is a fraud. If a married man obtains consent of an unmarried girl under the false pretext that he will marry her by concealing the fact of his previous marriage, then the consent given by the young girl shall be construed to be a consent obtained fraudulently and thus it is no consent. Here, in this matter, both the parties are not previously married.

Furthermore, the Bench then stipulates that:
This court is of the considered view that when a woman is married and educated, then, depending on facts of each case, she is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to solemnizing of the marriage. In the event of a consent obtained by fraud, inducement is a necessary ingredient. There must be some material on record to hold prima facie that the girl was induced by the accused to such an extent that she was in agreement to have sexual intercourse with him.

On a pragmatic note, the Bench then observes that:
There are allegations in the FIR of repeatedly committing an offence of rape, the punishment provisions for which are very stringent and not less than 10 years. Thus, on one hand, there is question of the life and liberty of the accused in view of gravity of the punishment and on the other hand, the mental trauma and physical sufferings of the girl. Both are required to be appropriately considered with a balanced view.

As a corollary, the Bench then holds that:
In view of over all discussions and observations made herein above and guided by the principles laid down in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) and State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (supra), I am of this firm view that the present is a fit case which falls within the parameters laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Therefore, this court deems it appropriate to allow the criminal misc. petitions and to quash the proceedings that arose out of the FIR impugned.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in the final para that:
Accordingly, the criminal misc. petitions are allowed. The FIR No. 36/2020 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Distt. Alwar for the offences under Sections 376-D, 418 and 506 of IPC, and all consequential proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof, are hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned SHO is directed to prepare a closure report of the case and to submit the same before the learned Magistrate concerned within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.

To conclude, the Rajasthan High Court has taken a very matured, pragmatic and balanced stand in this judgment after considering all the aspects of this case which has to be applauded in no uncertain terms. Justice Farjand Ali who delivered this extremely commendable judgment minced just no words to hold that married educated women depending upon the facts of each case, is supposed to be well aware of the consequences of having sexual intercourse with a man prior to the solemnizing of the marriage. It would certainly just not be in order that after years of sexual relationship with consent and her own convenience, an educated women suddenly wakes up and files case of rape. Such meritorious and extremely laudable judgment will ensure that rape laws don’t become potent weapons of harassment in hands of educated women. It has also cited ably relevant case laws as discussed hereinabove. Of course, there is no valid reason to differ with what has been held and all courts in similar such cases must emulate it. There can be just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.