Jharkhand High Court Rules on Consent in Case Involving Married Woman and False Promise of Marriage
In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Subhash Chand, made significant observations regarding the concept of consent in a case involving a married woman and an alleged false promise of marriage.
Justice Chand remarked,
“…the victim was major since the very time when she came in contact with the accused and while during the love affairs of the victim with the accused Abhishek Kumar Pal at college time, the victim was major, while the accused was minor at that time being 2 years younger to the victim.”
He further added,
“Victim married with V [name redacted] in the year 2018 as she was major; still without getting the marriage dissolved by the competent court of law, she established physical relation with the accused Abhishek Kumar Pal though on allurement to marry with her. The victim being the major and married lady she was very well aware in regard to the consequence of the physical relation with another person, more so she had married in the year 2018. Therefore, the consent herein cannot be said to be obtained by the accused under misconception.”
The backdrop of the case involves the accused allegedly enticing the informant into a romantic relationship, leading to physical intimacy, and urging her to keep their relationship a secret from her parents. After the accused left for his studies, the informant married another individual. However, the accused continued to be in touch with her, allegedly manipulating her emotionally. Following a promise of marriage from the accused, the informant divorced her husband in 2019.
In 2020, both parties applied for marriage registration, but the process was postponed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. During this period, the accused is said to have maintained physical relations with the informant. However, upon revealing their relationship to her parents, the accused’s family reportedly pressured him to decline the marriage proposal. The informant alleged criminal intimidation by the accused’s family.
The Court noted,
“Indeed, no judicial divorce was taken by the informant-victim from her former husband. The divorce agreement, which is on record between the informant-victim and her former husband V, in which, by way of mutual agreement reduced in writing on Rs.20/- stamp the marriage dated 26.04.2018 between the victim-informant and V was dissolved, therefore, this marriage was not judicially dissolved by the competent court.”
The Court further stated,
“This agreement in regard to the dissolution of marriage is nothing but a waste paper which has no evidential value in the eye of law.”
Given the allegations in the FIR and the evidence gathered, the Court concluded that there wasn’t sufficient ground to charge the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result, the previous order rejecting the accused’s discharge application was deemed illegal and was overturned. The accused was subsequently discharged from the charge framed under Section 376 of the IPC.
Counsel Representation:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P.
- For the O.P. No.2: Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
