False Promises and Prolonged Relationships: Reassessing Consent in Rape Cases

The Supreme Court tackles the complex issue of consent in rape cases where a false promise of marriage is alleged. In the present case the the Apex Court, composed of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, overturned the Bombay High Court's decision and quashed the FIR against the appellant, Mahesh Damu Khare, who was accused of rape and other offenses. The judgment clarifies the factors to be considered when assessing whether a woman's consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by a false promise of marriage, placing significant emphasis on the duration and nature of the relationship.

Background of the Case:
One Mahesh Damu Khare (appellant), who claimed to be a social worker, met the complainant (Respondent no. 2) in 2008 and They developed a relationship, and according to the complainant, Khare engaged in sexual intercourse with her from 2008 until 2017 under the false promise of marriage. The complainant furhter alleged that she consented to the physical relationship based on the misconception that Khare would marry her.

Mahesh Khare, however, maintained that their relationship was consensual and that the allegations of rape were fabricated in retaliation for his refusal to continue providing her with financial support. He stated that he had been the subject of harassment and threats from the complainant, leading him and his family to file multiple complaints against the Complainant.

The appellant was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in two separate FIRs lodged against him. The court highlighted the long delay between the alleged acts and the filing of the complaints, raising doubts about their credibility.

The Bombay High Court, nonetheless, refused to quash the FIR related to the rape charge, stating that the nature of the offense required further investigation.

The Supreme Court began by reviewing the scope of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which grants High Courts the inherent power to quash FIRs to prevent the misuse of the legal system. Citing precedents like The State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal(Click to Download) and Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors(Click to Download)., the Court outlined the specific circumstances under which an FIR can be quashed. These include cases where the allegations, even if taken as true, do not constitute an offense, or situations where there is clear evidence of malice or ulterior motives.

The Apex Court then turned to the crucial legal provisions related to rape: Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC (Sec 63 and Sec 64 of BNS). Section 375 defines the offense of rape, specifying various circumstances where sexual intercourse is considered non-consensual. The Court particularly focused on consent obtained under a "misconception of facts" as defined in Section 90 IPC.

Citing the case of Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.(Click to Download) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra(Click to Download), the Court emphasized that consent, in the context of rape, must involve a clear understanding of the circumstances and consequences of the act.

The Court, referencing Niam Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi)(Click to Download), drew a crucial distinction between a false promise to marry, made with no intention of fulfilling it from the outset, and a breach of promise that occurs due to unforeseen circumstances.

The Court stated that to establish that a false promise vitiated consent, there must be a direct connection between the promise and the woman's decision to engage in sexual intercourse. If other motivations or factors contributed to her decision, the promise alone may not be enough to render her consent invalid.

A key aspect of the Supreme Court's reasoning was its focus on the duration of the relationship. The Court stated that the fact that the complainant continued to have a sexual relationship with the appellant for nine years without any protest or insistence on marriage casts doubt on her claim that the initial promise was made with deceitful intent. The Court held that "the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on a false promise of marriage".

The Court also raised concerns about the potential for misuse of criminal law in such situations, observing that a delayed allegation of a false promise, particularly after a long relationship has ended, could be a way to criminalize a relationship that has simply soured.

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court determined that there was no prima facie case of rape against Khare, and it quashed the FIR, however, the court made it clear and held that "Every case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances, for we are dealing with human relationships and psychology which are dynamic and permeated with an array of unpredictable human emotions and sensitivities and hence, every decision relating to human relationships must be based on the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the particular case.".

The Court's above observation was to emphasize on the duration of the relationship, the woman's actions during the relationship, and the possibility of the legal process being misused in such situations provides significant guidance for future cases.

It is crucial to understand that this judgment does not mean that a false promise to marry can never form the basis for a rape charge. The Court simply emphasizes the necessity of carefully examining all the facts, especially the length and nature of the relationship, before reaching a legal conclusion. Each case must be assessed on its own merits.

Coram: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Between: Mahesh Damu Khare Vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr
Date of Judgment: 26-11-2024