XXX vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

1.	SCR Citation	[2024] 3 S.C.R. 309
2.	Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 181
3.	Year/Volume	2024/Volume 3
4.	Date of Judgement	6th March 2024
5.	Petitioner	XXX
6.	Respondent	State of Madhya Pradesh & Another
7.	Judgment Delivered by	Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
8.	Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
9.	Case Type	Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023
10.	Order/Judgement	Judgement

Introduction

This case, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2024, deals with significant issues surrounding the alleged commission of rape under false pretext of marriage and subsequent legal proceedings. The appellant challenged the dismissal of his petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which sought to quash an FIR registered against him under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case originates from a complaint filed by the prosecutrix, alleging that the appellant, who was a tenant in her house, developed a relationship with her and induced her to have sexual relations by promising marriage. However, she contended that the appellant reneged on this promise after she divorced her husband. The FIR, which was the subject of this appeal, claimed that the appellant’s actions amounted to rape and criminal intimidation.

The Supreme Court, while analyzing the factual matrix and legal arguments, emphasized the complainant’s maturity, her previous marital status, and the consensual nature of the relationship. It ultimately set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the FIR, highlighting the improper invocation of criminal law in personal relationships where consent was evident.

This case reaffirms the judiciary’s cautious approach in distinguish.

Facts of the case 

In XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Another, the chain of events created was rather long and comprised allegations of rape and criminal intimidation. The complainant is a married woman having a teenage daughter and separated from her husband on account of matrimonial disputes. She is staying in the house wherein the appellant was renting a place. They claimed that they started dating back in 2017. She further stated that if she would separate from her husband, the respondent promised to marry her. She claims it was for that reason alone that she separated from her husband in December of 2018 and began an intimate relationship with appellant. She also disclosed that she had got into a temple marriage with him in January 2019. He, however, rejected the said incident and instead submitted that they were not lawfully married during December 2020. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against him before the police for rape under Sections 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and threatening her under Section 506 IPC.

Some discrepancies were also observed during the investigation from the statements submitted by the complainant. She had given it in her FIR that her divorce was finalized in 2018, while official records reflect that the decree was passed much later in January 2021. Later, she herself admitted, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the subsequent statement recorded, that the relationship was consensual from the very beginning. Her family members, including parents and daughter, were aware of the relationship. She further alleged that she had lived with the appellant as his wife after the said temple marriage.

The Appellant denies all allegations of duress or fraud. He states that the complainant was an adult who knew what she was doing and that the allegations were to misuse the law. He also mentioned that he had lent her money, which she hadn’t repaid. He further added that the allegations were for ulterior reasons. The High Court dismissed the quashing petition of the FIR of the appellant, and he filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after examining the evidence and facts found that the relationship was consensual, and the FIR was without any merits and quashed the complaint.

Issues Raised

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellant’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC.

2. Whether the allegations of repeated rape on the complainant, made under the pretext of a false promise of marriage, fulfill the requirements of Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

3. Whether the appellant’s assurance to marry the complainant and take care of her daughter, followed by a refusal to marry, constitutes a “misconception of fact” sufficient to vitiate consent under Section 375 IPC.

4. Whether the complainant’s allegations satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

5. Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Arguments of the Plaintiff (appellant) 

The arguments advanced by the appellant before the Supreme Court were that the FIR filed by the complainant was, prima facie, an abuse of the legal process. He averred that the allegations of the complainant were contradictory and fictitious and presented only to harass him and not for any reason to do justice.

Mature and Consensual Relationship: There was the argument that the complainant was already a mature woman, much older than the appellant and perfectly capable of understanding the implications of her actions. She argued that their relationship was consensual from the very start, and hence negated any allegations of coercion or promise of marriage.

Contradictions in the Complainant’s Statements: The appellant pointed out gross contradictions between the complainant’s FIR and her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In the FIR, she had claimed that her divorce from her previous husband was finalized in December 2018, but the divorce decree was granted in January 2021. Such contradictions weakened her credibility and the story of an alleged promise of marriage.

Knowledge and Approval of the Family: The relationship was not secret, the complainant’s family including her parents and daughter, who were staying in the same house, were aware of it, making the relationship even more consensual.

Underlying Motives: He stated that the complaint was filed for ulterior motives. He had advanced a loan amount of ₹1,00,000 to the complainant through bank transfer, which was not returned to him. He suspected that it might have been for this reason that the complainant had filed the complaint.

Precedents: For the proposition that the act of consensual sexual relations cannot be termed rape even if one of the parties retracts a promise of marriage later on, the appellant relied on Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi). He pleaded that the Court may take cognizance of those judgments which explained the scope of Section 375 of the IPC.

Based on these arguments, the appellant sought the quashing of the FIR, asserting that the charges against him were baseless and unsupported by evidence.

Arguments of the Respondent (Complainant)

False Promise of Marriage to Commit Rape: The complainant argued that she had a physical relationship with the appellant based on the false pretense of marriage. She testified before the court stating that the appellant assured her of marrying her provided she divorced her husband, leading her to give up her consent for this relationship.

Temple Marriage and Public Declaration: She deposed that the respondent married her in a temple in January 2019 and continued staying with her as her husband thereafter. According to her, this act convinced her that he would marry her and, thus legitimized her consent to the relationship.

Refusal to Marry: Despite all the promises made by the respondent, he refused to marry the complainant in December 2020, thereby inflicting emotional and legal damage. According to the complainant, by such a refusal, the nature of the relationship between them transformed into exploitation.

Protection of Vulnerable Women: The respondents underlined that women should not be cheated and taken advantage of in their intimate relationship. They argued that the complainant was vulnerable because of her strained marital relationship and economic hardship, which the appellant allegedly exploited.

Credibility of FIR at the Preliminary Stage: The State submitted that, considering the petition for quashing an FIR, the scope of judicial inquiry ought to remain confined to looking only at the allegations in the FIR and not venture into the realm of evidence. The contention was also to the effect that the FIR prima facie made a case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and thus required further investigation and trail.
 

 Caution of Judiciary in Quashing FIRs: Quoting established legal precedents, the State argued that FIRs could not be quashed at an early stage especially in serious cases of rape. The matter should be tested at the trial stage rather than at the preliminary stage.

Exploitation Evidence: The complainant pointed out that the appellant had shown her as a nominee in an insurance policy, further misleading her into believing in the sincerity of his intentions. This, combined with his actions and later refusal to marry, was presented as evidence of exploitation.

The respondents concluded that the acts committed by the appellant amounted to rape under the IPC as the consent given by the complainant was obtained based on a false promise of marriage. They urged the Court to dismiss the appeal and allow the trial to proceed in order to determine the facts.

Principles Applied

1. Consent Under Misconception of Fact: The Supreme Court pointed out that the Section 375 of the IPC states that “consent obtained under a misconception of fact” is rape only where the promise of marriage was made in bad faith or without any intention to be carried out. In this case, it was held by the Court that there was nothing to indicate that the appellant promised marriage at the beginning of their relationship.

2. Maturity and Autonomy in Consent: The Court observed that the complainant was a mature adult, more aged than the appellant, and hence empowered to take an informed decision regarding her relationships. It observed that her consent was free, voluntary, and not by coercion or deceit.

3. Infringements on Statements: The Court also noticed major contradictions between the statements given by the complainant, which mainly relate to the date she got divorced and therefore further dilute the complainant’s version and enhance the consensual aspect of the relationship.

4. Judicial Restraint in Quashing FIRs: The Court restated that FIRs can be quashed only when the allegations, even if accepted as true, do not constitute an offense. It held that the allegations made in this case failed to make out a prima facie case of rape or criminal intimidation.

5. Precedents on False Promise of Marriage: Citing judgments in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court again reiterated that consented sexual relations, although not leading to marriage, could not be called rape per se unless it involved fraudulent intent.

6. Abuse of Legal Process: The Court highlighted the need to prevent the abuse of criminal law in personal disputes, noting that the complainant’s allegations seemed to be a vindictive attempt to pressure the appellant rather than a genuine pursuit of justice.

7. Section 376(2)(n) IPC (Punishment for Repeated Rape): This section imposes enhanced punishment when the same woman is repeatedly raped by the accused. Under this section, the complainant had filed charges against the appellant, but the Court held the allegations inconsistent with the facts of the case.

8. Section 506 IPC: Criminal Intimidation. It deals with threatening someone with an injury to their person, reputation, or property for causing alarm or compelling him to do something against his will. The Court found no evidence of intimidation in this case.

9. Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Inherent Powers of the High Court): The Court invoked this section, which empowers the High Court to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law or secure justice. The provision is applicable in cases where the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offense or where proceedings are frivolous or vexatious.

Case Law Cited

• Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2023] 1 SCR

1061 : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 89 – relied on.

• Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), [2013] 1 SCR

504 : (2013) 9 SCC 293 – referred to.

Judgement 

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR filed against the appellant for offences under sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC. It set aside the order that was passed earlier by the High Court. According to it, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was consensual in nature and rape and criminal intimidation were not even made out by the allegations in the case. It highlighted that the complainant was a mature and intelligent adult who entered the relationship willingly and knew all the implications of it. The Court further pointed out important contradictions in the complainant’s statements, like false claims over the timeline of her divorce, which further went to undermine her credibility. Referring to precedents like Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that a consensual relationship cannot be characterized as rape unless the consent was procured through deliberate deceit or fraudulent promises. It reminded that criminal law could not be misused for personal issues and observed that allegations raised had an appearance of vindictive nature and thus motivated by personal grievances. It concluded with allowing the appeal quashing all the proceedings arising out of the FIR and reaffirming that criminal law was not to be used as an instrument of private revenge.

Analysis

This judgment by the Supreme Court again brings out a very fine line between addressing grievances that are genuinely under the criminal justice system and the misuse of such a system for personal disputes. The quashing of the FIR by the Court brings to light several important points.

1. Consent and Misconception of Fact:
The Court went deep into the concept of consent, which needs to be free, informed, and voluntary. Deception in the guise of a promise of marriage not to be fulfilled only vitiates the relationship if certain conditions exist. Under longstanding practice, the Court has clarified and confirmed that such a promise must have been made in bad faith with no intention to be kept at the time it was made. On the facts, nothing substantiated a false 

promise of marriage; rather, the relationship was held to have been consensual.

2. Role of Maturity and Autonomy:
Again, using the complainant’s age, experience in life, and autonomy, the Court reasserted the general principle that adults are deemed competent to make choices regarding their lives. The maturity and understanding of the complainant of the dynamics in the relationship substantially weakened her claims of being misled or coerced.

3. Prevention of Misuse of Law:
The judgment is a wake-up call to the misuse of criminal law for personal vendettas. The Court noted that the allegations made by the complainant appeared to be driven by personal agendas, such as the appellant’s refusal to marry her and her financial transactions with him. This demonstrates the judiciary’s role in safeguarding people from harassment through frivolous or vexatious litigation.

4. Importance of Evidence and Credibility:
The inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, particularly regarding the timeline of her divorce, were crucial in discrediting her allegations. The Court emphasized that a complainant’s narrative must align with objective evidence to establish a credible case. This reinforces the principle that allegations, no matter how serious, must withstand judicial scrutiny.

5. Judicial Caution in Quashing FIRs:
The Court observed that FIRs are to be quashed only under exceptional circumstances and where no cogent offense has been made out. In this context, looking at the facts coupled with already established legal precedents shows how judicious judicial interference coexists with deference to investigative processes.

6. Restatement of Legal Precedents
Thus, the reliance on judgments like Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi) by the Court reflects how it has aimed at consistency of judicial interpretation and how such consented relationships would not be regarded as criminal post break-up unless evident deceit or force is involved.

Conclusion

The judgment serves as a significant precedent in cases involving allegations of rape under a false promise of marriage. It reinforces the need for a careful examination of facts, the importance of protecting individual autonomy, and the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of criminal law. At the same time, it underscores the challenges faced by complainants in proving bad faith or deceit in intimate relationships, raising broader questions about the intersection of personal morality and legal accountability.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.manupatrafast.com
2. https://digiscr.sci.gov.in

This article is written by Uday Bhog First-year Law student of O.P Jindal Global University B.com L.L.B ; Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.