The Supreme Court dispels myths, exposing a four-year story of purported deception and agreement.

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed proceedings against the accused, emphasizing the implausibility of the prosecutrix sustaining a four-year physical relationship solely on the grounds of a false promise of marriage.

Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal presided over the case, where the appeal sought to quash charges under Sections 376(2), 377, 504, 506 of the IPC, and various clauses of the SC and ST, in 1989.

The appellant and the second respondent’s connection originated during a beauty parlor hair-cutting course. Upon discovering her pregnancy, the appellant assured imminent marriage, dissuading the second respondent from an abortion. However, she later discovered the appellant’s engagement to another woman.

Claiming a Nikah marriage, supported by a seized Nikahnama and the second respondent’s name in his passport, the appellant faced charges under Sections 376(2), 377, 504, 506 IPC, and various clauses of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Supreme Court referred to Section 375 IPC, emphasizing that if the victim is over 18 and consents, maintaining a sexual relationship is not criminal. Citing the Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh case, the court highlighted that consent based on a false promise of marriage nullifies voluntariness.

The complaint, filed when the second respondent was 24, alleged a physical relationship starting in 2012, with objections raised only in February 2018. Despite two pregnancies, no force was asserted between 2013 and 2017. An engagement ceremony occurred in July 2017.

The court deemed it implausible that the second respondent endured the physical relationship from 2013 to 2017 solely on a false promise of marriage. Although the original Nikahnama was absent, a seized carbon copy and witness testimony supported the marriage.

Conclusively, the court found the physical relationship consensual from 2013 to 2017. The second respondent’s engagement admission and participation without objection in the 2017 ceremony contradicted the notion that the relationship hinged solely on the appellant’s promise of marriage.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top