Case Title: Amar Singh Rajput vs State of Madhya Pradesh
A single bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal of Madhya Pradesh High Court while quashing a rape case against a man on allegedly having a sexual relation with the woman on a false promise to marry her, held that more than one year time is sufficient for woman to realize as to whether the promise of marriage made by a man is false from its very inception or it is a breach of promise.
“Near about more than one year time is sufficient time for a prudent woman to realize as to whether the promise of marriage made by the petitioner is false from its very inception or there is a possibility of breach of promise”.
While relying upon a supreme court judgement, justice highlighted that there is a difference between mere breach of promise and giving false promise to marry.
The bench explained that the false promise to marry made with an intention to deceive a woman, were a breach of promise to marry cannot be considered a false promise.
The bench found that the woman had been in relationship with the man for a long period and she had herself gone to the residence of the man.
The bench also questioned that why the woman had continued the relation with the man when he had not agreed to her request of marrying her.
“When the petitioner was not acceding to her request for marriage, then why she continued with a relationship with him till lodging of the FIR. Thus, it is clear that at the most, it can be said that it is a case of breach of promise and, therefore, it cannot be said that the promise made by the petitioner was obtained under fear or misconception of fact”.
The FIR was lodged against a man in the year 2020, wherein he was booked for rape and several other offences under Indian Penal Code.
According to the woman, the man had proposed to marry her and then engaged in a physical relationship. She also claimed that when she asked him to marry her, he ignored her.
Despite this, they continued talking over the phone.
The counsel for the man submitted that the woman was mature and she has three children, she engaged in a physical relationship with the man with her own will and volition.
While the advocate for the woman submitted that there is no consent if a woman continues physical relation on believing the promise of the man.
After considering the summations from both the side, the bench found that it cannot be said that the woman’s consent was obtained by misconception of fact. It can be said as breach of promise to marry not a false promise to marry.
The bench quashed the proceedings against a man.