False Promise to Marry Amidst an Ongoing Marriage: A Legal Battle of Consent, Betrayal, and Misrepresentation
0
32
0
AUTHOR : TARUMITA BISWAS
Background of the Case:
According to the F.I.R., the prosecutrix stated that:
She is a married woman, with a daughter aged 15, managing her own cloth shop.
In 2017, Sadbhav Company had rented the first floor of her house. The appellant worked with the company.
She knew the appellant from 2017, and he used to visit her shop during his spare time.
As she was separated from her husband, the appellant proposed to marry her if she divorced.
10-12-2018: She got divorced from her previous husband.
10-01-2019 (11 p.m.): The appellant had physical relations with her by promising to marry her.
06-06-2020: She alleged that the appellant again made physical relations with her.
11-12-2020: When she insisted on marriage, the appellant refused, stating his family disagreed.
11-12-2020: F.I.R. against the appellant was recorded.
Statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC:
The parties had been in a relationship since 2017, without any initial promise to marry.
In 2018, the appellant left for a job in Maharashtra but continued visiting her and caring for her and her daughter.
In 2019, she got divorced from her abusive husband.
The alleged promise to marry was made in January 2019, and physical relations followed.
She claimed to have married the appellant in a temple in January 2019, while still legally married to her previous husband.
Despite assurance, the appellant did not solemnize the court marriage.
From January 2019 to June 2020, they lived as husband and wife, having physical relations.
13-01-2021: Divorce decree by mutual consent with her previous husband was dated.
She alleged that they had a physical relationship while she was married.
She is ten years older than the appellant and mature enough to understand the moral and immoral implications, yet she consented to the relationship while still married.
After that, the appellant refused to respond to her calls and did not marry her.
Statement by parents and daughter of the prosecutrix:
The parties were found residing together like husband and wife.
Statement by appellant:
The appellant claimed that the prosecutrix was betraying her husband.
He would return from Maharashtra and stay with her, and he even advanced a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 for her, which she never returned.
Sections Applied:
Cohabiting with a person under the false belief of marriage (IPC: 493)
If the partner is aware of a former marriage (IPC: 494)
Rape (IPC: 376, 376A)
Recording of confessions and statements (CrPC: 164)
Saving of inherent power of the High Court (CrPC: 482)
Cases Cited:
Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 15 SCC 385
Vinod Gupta v. State of M.P., 2022 SCC OnLine MP 1837 (reversed)
Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293
Arguments:
The Appeal:The appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dismissing his petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the F.I.R.
Arguments by Appellant:The appellant's counsel submitted that the F.I.R. was an abuse of the legal process. The prosecutrix, a married woman with a 15-year-old daughter, lived with her parents. The appellant had consensual physical relations with her in the presence of her family. The claim of a promise to marry is false as she was still married. There were major discrepancies between the F.I.R. and her statement under Section 164, CrPC. The prosecutrix claimed to have divorced her husband in 2018 and married the appellant in 2019, but her divorce was finalized only in 2021, making her claims false. The proceedings initiated were an abuse of the law. The appellant also advanced a loan of Rs. 1,00,000, which the prosecutrix never returned.
Arguments by Prosecutrix:The State's counsel contended that this was a clear case of rape based on a false promise to marry. At the stage of quashing, only the contents of the F.I.R. are to be examined, and the documents revealed a strong case against the appellant. The prosecutrix, living with her parents after separating from her husband, entered a relationship with her tenant, the appellant, based on a false promise to marry. They had physical relations, a temple wedding, and the appellant even listed her as a nominee on his insurance policy. The counsel argued that the appellant’s false promise constituted rape, and the F.I.R. should not be quashed.
Judgment:
All proceedings against the appellant were quashed, and the appeal was allowed.
The Court referred to the complainant’s discrepancies between her F.I.R. and statement under Section 164 CrPC. Her statement revealed that she had consented to the relationship since 2017, and there was no promise to marry until January 2019. Despite her claims, the evidence showed they lived together as husband and wife, with the knowledge of her parents and daughter. The complainant’s claim of a divorce in 2018 was contradicted by her actual divorce decree, dated January 2021, indicating she remarried while still married.
The complainant, being ten years older than the appellant, was deemed mature and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of her actions. Despite this, she continued the relationship and concealed the facts of her marriage and divorce. The initiation of proceedings was, therefore, deemed an abuse of the legal process.
Analysis:
This case highlights the discrepancies in the complainant's statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and her claims in the F.I.R. The prosecutrix misled the authorities by concealing the facts of her marriage and divorce while remarrying the appellant during the subsistence of her previous marriage. Her actions were deemed a betrayal of both her previous husband and the appellant.
This case sets a landmark precedent: "No Rape on False Promise to Marry when the Woman is Already Married."
Related Posts
