The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the rape FIR stating that the complainant was married and intelligent enough to understand the consequences.
The bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal was dealing with the appeal challenging the order passed by the High Court whereby a petitio filed by him under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR was dismissed.
In this case, the complainant states that she had a dispute with her husband, leading to their separation. In 2017, Sadbhav Company had taken the first floor of their house on rent in which the appellant, who was working with the company stayed.
The appellant proposed that in case she divorced, he would marry her. After the divorce of the complainant, the appellant proposed marriage. Despite promises, he allegedly engaged in physical relations with her without formal marriage in January 2019 and again in June 2020.
The complainant insists that the appellant assured her of marriage, leading her to divorce her husband in 2019. They purportedly married in a temple but did not proceed with a court marriage. The appellant, initially treating her as his wife, later refused to respond to calls or marry her, prompting her to file an FIR on December 11, 2020.
In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she acknowledges knowing the appellant since 2017, falling in love, and the appellant caring for her and her daughter. The complainant claims they lived together as a married couple from January 2019 to June 2020, after which the appellant severed ties and declined to marry her.
Supreme Court noted that there was a complete change in the stand of the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The parties admittedly were in relations from 2017 onwards. Some alleged promise to marry came in January 2019, from where they started having physical relations. It is not only the consent of the complainant which is clearly evident but also of the parents and daughter of the complainant as they were living in the same house, where allegedly the appellant and the complainant were having physical relations.
From the contents of the complaint, the bench observed that there was no promise to marry initially when the relations between the parties started in the year 2017. In any case, even on the dates when the complainant alleges that the parties had physical relations, she was already married. She falsely claimed that divorce from her earlier marriage took place on 10.12.2018.
Supreme Court further opined that the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed only on 13.01.2021. It is not a case where the complainant was of an immature age that could not foresee her welfare and take right decision. She was a grown up lady about ten years elder to the appellant. She was matured and intelligent enough to understand the consequences of the moral and immoral acts for which she consented during subsistence of her earlier marriage.
The bench referred to the case of Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) where a similar issue was considered by the Court where the prosecutrix herself was already a married woman having three children. The complaint of alleged rape on false promises of marriage was made five years after they had started having relations. She even got pregnant from the loins of the accused. Therein she got divorce from her existing marriage much after the relations between the parties started.
Supreme Court found that there cannot be any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for sexual relationship under misconception. The accused was not held to be guilty.
In view of the above judgment, the bench allowed the appeal.
Case Title: X v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Bench: Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3431 OF 2023
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our YouTube channel: click here
