The Bombay High Court, led by Justice Makarand Karnik, has quashed decade-long rape charges against a man, citing insufficient evidence to prove the complainant’s consent was based on a false promise of marriage.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Bombay High Court has brought significant relief to a man embroiled in legal battles for over a decade. The court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings against him for allegedly raping a woman under the pretext of marriage highlights a critical examination of consent, promises, and the legal process.
Justice Makarand Karnik, presiding over the case, made a profound statement on February 16, emphasizing the insufficiency of evidence to prove that the complainant’s consent was obtained through a false promise of marriage from the beginning.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court’s Interpretation on ‘Outraging Modesty’ Under Scrutiny
“I am satisfied that the material on record falls short of establishing that from inception the consent of the complainant was a result of the false promise of marriage. In my view, continuing the prosecution will be a gross abuse of the process of law,”
– Justice Karnik articulated,
Thereby setting a precedent on the interpretation of consent in cases of alleged rape under the guise of marriage promises.
This decision came as a reversal of the July 2016 order by a Pune sessions court, which had previously refused to discharge the accused man. The origins of the case trace back to a December 2013 FIR, which detailed how the woman met the man seven years prior to the filing.
Their acquaintance turned into a romantic engagement after exchanging phone numbers in 2011, leading to a proposal from the man shortly after. Despite initial hesitations, the woman accepted his proposal, and in September 2011, she visited his house, marking the beginning of their physical relationship predicated on the promise of marriage—a promise that was reiterated multiple times.
ALSO READ: Bombay HC resolves to act against illegal construction
The narrative took a turn when the woman discovered the man’s involvement with another woman. Despite his denials and threats of serious consequences should she pursue her inquiries, the man began to distance himself. When reminded of his marriage promise, he outright refused, prompting the woman to lodge a police complaint.
During the proceedings, the prosecution argued that the woman consented to the physical relationship under the false impression of an impending marriage. However, Justice Karnik pointed out the significant time lapse between the start of their relationship in 2011 and the filing of the FIR in December 2013, noting the woman’s age progression from 18 to 30 years.
He highlighted-
“Though the relationship commenced in the year 2011, the complainant did not make any grievance about it till December 2013. It is not the case of the complainant that the applicant forced her to maintain the physical relationship. The complainant was in a love relationship with the applicant prior to the physical relationship. Even after getting knowledge that the applicant was in a relationship with another woman, the complainant did not make any grievance.”
Justice Karnik’s observations led to the conclusion that the physical relationship was consensual and not solely based on the promise of marriage.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Based on Social Media Data
“It is not possible to accept that the complainant maintained the physical relationship only because the applicant had given a promise of marriage. This is not a case where the consent of the complainant is based on misconception,” he stated, thereby directing that “the applicant be discharged from all charges.”
This judgment not only brings closure to a decade-long legal ordeal for the man but also sets a significant legal precedent in understanding the nuances of consent and the implications of promises within personal relationships.
