The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a married woman cannot claim rape based on a false promise of marriage. The Court quashed the case, stating her consent was not obtained under “misconception of fact.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a married woman cannot claim that she was forced into a physical relationship with another man because he falsely promised to marry her.
Justice Maninder S Bhatti canceled a rape case filed against a man accused by a married woman last year.
The Court looked at past judgments in similar cases and stated,
“The aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court postulate that when the prosecutrix is married lady, and therefore, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of the consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of the fact’.”
The accused man, who was already married, approached the High Court after a woman from his neighborhood accused him of rape. The woman was also married and had two children.
She claimed that the accused lived nearby, and they were friends for three months. According to her, the accused promised to marry her after divorcing his own wife and established a physical relationship with her. Later, he refused to marry her, saying he could not divorce his wife.
The Court reviewed the woman’s statements and found that she was in a relationship with the accused for three months. Whenever her husband was away, the accused visited her, and they had physical relations.
The Court noted,
“Therefore, it cannot be said that the consent was given by the prosecutrix under some misconception of fact. Moreover, if the FIR is perused carefully and subjected to microscopic scrutiny it would reveal that there are no allegations that the present applicant pressurized the prosecutrix to enter into wedlock under the garb of false promise of marriage.”
Additionally, the Court pointed out that the FIR did not show any strong proof that the woman entered into the relationship because of a false promise of marriage.
It stated,
“In such a case, the FIR is required to be nipped in the bud, as the same would entail in the long drawn process of conduct of trial whereas the allegations levelled in the FIR on their face value, do not indicate the commission of offence under the aforesaid sections.”
With this reasoning, the Court dismissed the case.
Advocate Shreyash Pandit represented the accused, while Deputy Government Advocate Shailendra Mishra represented the State.
CASE TITLE:
Veerendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
