Rape Case Over False Promise To Marry, Karnataka HC Says Length of Relationship Is Considerable Factor

The Karnataka High Court bench comprising Justice M Nagaprasanna recently quashed the proceedings under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n) , 354, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused who was charged after he refused to marry the girl after a courtship of over five years but the court kept the charges under section 506 r/w 34 and 323 of the IPC against the accused.

The petitioner was in a relationship with the complainant but they belonged on different castes and hence they could not go ahead with marriage. However it has been submitted by the petitioner that the complainant thereafter filed a complaint against him under the charges of rape as it has been alleged by her that the sexual intercourse they had was on a false pretext of marriage and amounts to rape. The petitioner submitted that the same cannot be called rape as it was by the consent of the complainant which she gave by her free will.

The bench observed that the complainant had narrated that sexual intercourse was initiated by the petitioner forcibly at the beginning but the court noted that such force could not have subsisted for a period of five years. 

The court noted that on coalesce of the complaint, the statement and the summary of the charge sheet, it becomes as clear that the relationship between the two was purely consensual as finding is that the petitioner and the complainant had sexual intercourse on several occasions. 

The court also relied on the observations made in the case Ramachandra v. State of Kerala where the court had taken a similar view and noted that the consent could not have bene taken forcibly for a period as long as five years.

The bench observed that the narration in the complaint at the statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C  indicate that the petitioner and the woman had known each other for a period of 12 years and had been in a relationship for 5 years while their families also knew each other. The court noted that the talks of marriage were also initiated but they could not materialise. The court also considered the submission of the petitioner that the marriage could not take place despite his best efforts.

The court also relied on the decision of apex court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra where distinction was drawn between rape and consensual sexual relationships.

The bench further noted that there are other offences alleged against the petitioner. They are offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 406, 504, 506 of the IPC. Section 354 would get subsumed to the reasons rendered for obliterating the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Therefore, invocation of Section 354 also requires to be obliterated. Section 406 which deals with criminal breach of trust has its ingredients in Section 405. 

The bench observed that the ingredients of Section 405 mandate that there should be a property entrusted from the hands of the victim to the accused and the accused should have used the said property with dishonest intention towards his or her own purpose. 

There is neither an allegation of the kind nor any ingredient for the said offence. Financial transactions have taken place between the two but that by itself would not become an ingredient of criminal breach of trust.

In the light of the aforementioned, the high court quashed the proceedings under Sections 376, 376 (2) (n) , 354, 406 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused who was charged after he refused to marry the girl after a courtship of over five years but the court kept the charges under section 506 r/w 34 and 323 of the IPC against the accused.

CASE: MALLIKARJUN DESAI GOUDAR V. STATE OF KERELA & ANOTHER

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4761 OF 2022