Alleging Rape On False Promise Of Marriage Is 'Baseless' When Complainant Lady Was Already Married And Not Divorced: Kerala High Court

Post By 24law
February 28, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that an allegation of rape on the false promise of marriage is baseless when the complainant was already married and continued in that marriage without obtaining a divorce. The Court emphasized that in such cases, the promise of marriage itself is an impossibility, thereby negating the claim of consent obtained through misconception of fact.

Court’s Observations on Promise of Marriage

Justice A. Badharudeen, while allowing a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the accused, noted: “In this matter, the sexual intercourse in between the petitioner and the de facto complainant is the outcome of consent and the offences would attract only when it is shown prima facie that the consent was obtained on misconception of fact. It is true that offering marriage and subjecting a lady to sexual intercourse on that promise of marriage would amount to obtaining consent by misconception of fact. But the scenario is absolutely different when the lady alleging sexual intercourse on promise of marriage is a lady who solemnized an earlier marriage and continued in the said marriage relationship without being divorced. In such cases, the very promise of marriage is an impossibility and such allegation is only baseless. Therefore, question of misconception also does not arise.”

Case Background

The case originated from an allegation by the complainant, who accused the petitioner—an officer in the Kerala Police—of subjecting her to sexual intercourse on the false promise of marriage and also obtaining Rs. 9,30,000 from her. The accused was charged under Sections 342 (wrongful confinement) and 376(2)(n) (repeated rape on the same woman) of the IPC. The accused moved the High Court seeking to quash further proceedings in the case. The petitioner argued that he had initially proposed marriage to the complainant bona fide, believing that she was unmarried. However, upon discovering that she was already married and had two children, he withdrew the proposal as legal marriage was not possible. Despite this, the complainant lodged a false case against him.

Analysis of the Complainant’s Statements

The Court noted that in the complainant’s First Information Statement and additional statements, she had repeatedly admitted that she was a married woman and had not obtained a divorce. The Court held that since the complainant was legally bound in a subsisting marriage, the accused’s alleged promise to marry her was inherently invalid.

“In the instant case, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor, the de facto complainant is a lady already married and she is having two children and she is continuing her earlier marriage relationship without being divorced, as volunteered by her. In such view of the matter, the promise of marriage is an outright impossibility.” The Court further found that the complainant had a history of impersonation and fraudulent activities, citing multiple FIRs against her, including cases under Sections 406, 420, and 506 IPC for deceiving other individuals.

Court’s Conclusion

Given these findings, the High Court ruled that the allegations of rape and wrongful confinement could not be sustained. It held: “Therefore, the alleged sexual intercourse on 24.4.2022 and subsequently, till the ides of October, 2022, is to be held as one arising out of consent by the de facto complainant and therefore, no offence under Section 376 of the IPC would attract. In such scenario, no wrongful confinement also could be found prima facie to attract the penal provision under Section 342 of the IPC also.”

Quashing of Proceedings

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner: “In the result, this petition stands allowed. Annexure A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.1071 of 2023 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of cases under the PoCSO Act, Thrissur, arising out of Crime No.330 of 2023 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, against the petitioner herein, stand quashed.”