Kochi: In a path breaking judgement, Kerala High Court observed that an allegation of rape on false promise to marry will not stand if the woman knew that the man was already married and still continued the sexual relationship with the accused.
The judgment came from the bench of Justice Kauser Edaggapath who said that any sex had between such a couple could only be termed as one on account of love and passion, and not based on any false promise to marry.
“The admitted fact that the 4th respondent is having a relationship with the petitioner since 2010 and she continued the relationship knowing about his marriage from 2013 onwards would nullify the story regarding the sexual intercourse on the false pretext of marrying her. The alleged sex can only be termed as one on account of love and passion for the petitioner and not on account of misrepresentation made to her by the petitioner,” read the order.
The court reiterated that if a man retracts his promise to marry a woman, then consensual sex they had will not constitute an offence of rape under Section 376 of the IPC unless it is established that the consent for such sexual act was obtained by him by giving false promise of marriage with no intention of adhering to the same and that the promise made was false to his knowledge.
The court then passed the order on a plea moved by man to quash the case registered against him for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 376 (rape) of Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution allegation was that over a period of nine years, the petitioner, by giving a false promise of marriage to the complainant, had sexual intercourse with her in several places in India and abroad.
The court noted that the statement of the complainant disclosed that she knew the petitioner since 2010 and she came to know about the fact that the petitioner was married five to six years ago. Still, she was in a sexual relationship with him till 2019.
The court finally decided to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.
(IANS)
