Bombay High Court Quashes FIR and Charge Sheet in Consensual Relationship Case

Court rules that long-term consensual relationships do not constitute false promise to marry; quashing proceedings deemed necessary to prevent abuse of judicial process.

In a significant ruling, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR and charge sheet against Shri. Pravesh, who was accused of sexual offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The judgment, delivered by Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande, emphasized that a consensual relationship spanning several years between two adults cannot be construed as a relationship based on a false promise to marry.

The case arose from an FIR lodged by the complainant, a 35-year-old woman, who alleged that Shri. Pravesh, 30, maintained a sexual relationship with her under the guise of a marriage promise. The relationship, which began in August 2017, continued until November 2020, after which the complainant discovered that Shri. Pravesh was engaged to another woman.

Upon reviewing the case, the court determined that both parties were mature adults capable of understanding the implications of their relationship. The court noted the absence of evidence suggesting that Shri. Pravesh never intended to marry the complainant from the onset of their relationship. The judges highlighted that a breach of promise, as opposed to a false promise made at the relationship’s inception, does not fulfill the criteria for invoking the relevant sections of the IPC concerning rape.

Citing precedents such as the Supreme Court's ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated the legal distinction between breach of promise and false promise, emphasizing that consent involves a reasoned choice by the individual concerned. The judgment further referenced the State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal case to assert that proceeding with the case would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Consequently, the court ordered the quashing of the FIR and charge sheet, deeming the continuation of proceedings as a miscarriage of justice. The ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on protecting consensual relationships from being mischaracterized in legal proceedings, thus preventing unnecessary judicial burdens.

Bottom Line:

Consensual relationship between two adults spanning over years does not amount to obtaining consent under misconception or false promise to marry, and continuation of proceedings against the accused in such cases would amount to abuse of process of court.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 376(2)(n), 294, 506(2), 34; Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va), 3(2), 3(V), 3(1)(r)(s); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482.

Shri. Pravesh v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2807158