The Kerala High Court on Saturday 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.
Quashing a rape case against a 33-year-old man, Justice Kauser Edappagath said the relationship between the accused and the complainant appears to have been consensual. Edaggapath opined 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 order said, “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.”
Referring to previous cases, the court observed 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 Indian Penal Code (IPC) unless it is established that 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, reports Bar and Bench.
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 later revealed that 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 complainant said that he had promised to divorce his wife, but later moved on to have relationships with other women.
It was further alleged that the petitioner dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver an amount of ₹15 lakhs and five sovereigns of gold.
The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate P Vijaya Bhanu and advocates K Joseph, AA Ziyad Rahman, Suresh Sukumar, and VS Shiraz Bava.
The complaining was represented by Senior Advocate S Sreekumar and advocates MB Shyni and Deepak Raj.
Source link
