Bombay High Court: “Consent Obtained Under False Promise of Marriage is Not Valid Consent; Allegations of Dowry Demands and False Promises Justify Prosecution” – Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Case Involving Misuse of Marriage Promise to Exploit the Victim

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the FIR filed against the petitioner. The court held that the allegations in the FIR disclose a prima facie case of offenses under Sections 376(2)(n) and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court ruled that there was no justification to quash the FIR based on the facts and circumstances presented.

Facts

1. The petitioner and the complainant met in 2022 while working together at an IT company in Mumbai. Their professional relationship turned into a friendship, and the petitioner eventually proposed marriage.
2. On 14th December 2022, the petitioner allegedly took the complainant to his house and, despite her resistance, established a sexual relationship with her under the assurance of marriage.
3. Subsequently, in February 2023, the petitioner and complainant agreed to marry with the consent of their parents. An engagement ceremony was conducted on 23rd June 2023, and the entire expenditure was borne by the complainant’s parents, including an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- given to the petitioner.
4. The complainant alleged that the petitioner used to forcefully engage in sexual activities with her at various hotels, promising to marry her. There were also demands made by the petitioner and his parents for the complainant’s parents to cover the wedding expenses and to provide additional items such as gold jewelry and cash.
5. Quarrels ensued due to these dowry demands, and on 12th January 2024, the petitioner informed the complainant that he would not marry her. Despite efforts by the complainant and her family to persuade him, the petitioner and his parents refused, resulting in the complainant filing the impugned FIR.

Issues

The primary issue was whether the petition should be allowed to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner, considering the allegations of false promises of marriage, breach of trust, and dowry demands.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that:

1. There was a consensual relationship between the parties, and both were adults who made their decisions willingly.
2. The relationship deteriorated due to personal differences, and the decision to not marry was made in good faith.
3. The FIR was a tool to blackmail and harass him, and the legal proceedings would serve no purpose.
4. He claimed there was no intention to deceive, and the complainant was aware of the consequences of engaging in a physical relationship.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, represented by the learned A.P.P., argued that:

1. The petitioner induced the complainant to engage in a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage, which he had no intention of fulfilling.
2. The dowry demands and threats were corroborated by the complainant’s family and other witnesses.
3. WhatsApp chats between the parties and statements from the hotel staff further substantiated the complainant’s claims.
4. The relationship was not consensual, as the consent was obtained under a false promise of marriage.

Analysis of the Law

The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 375 and 90 of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the interpretation of “consent” and “misconception of fact” in the context of sexual relationships. The court referred to judgments such as Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Shambhu Kharwar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing that consent under a misconception of fact is not valid and that a false promise to marry can vitiate consent under Section 375.

Precedent Analysis

1. In Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court distinguished between a breach of promise and a false promise. A breach of promise occurs when a promise made in good faith is later not fulfilled, while a false promise involves an intention to deceive from the very beginning.
2. In Shambhu Kharwar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court reiterated that consent under a misconception of fact is not valid, and if the false promise was the basis for the relationship, it would amount to an offense under Section 375.
3. The court also referenced Priyanka Jaiswal vs. The State of Jharkhand, which cautioned against quashing FIRs at an early stage when serious allegations are involved, without a thorough trial.

Court’s Reasoning

The court observed that the petitioner had engaged in a relationship with the complainant while being fully aware of her caste and social status. The initial willingness of the petitioner to marry the complainant changed only due to the non-fulfillment of dowry demands, indicating mala fide intentions. The court ruled that the allegations in the FIR were not mere breaches of a promise to marry but amounted to constructive cheating and offenses under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR, holding that the allegations made out a prima facie case, and it was not appropriate to interfere at this stage. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s arguments could not be examined in a summary proceeding and would require a full trial to ascertain the facts.

Implications

The decision reinforces the legal position that consent obtained under false promises is not valid consent and such acts can attract prosecution under Sections 375 and 420 of the IPC. The court also upheld the importance of examining the circumstances leading to a sexual relationship in cases involving false promises to marry, setting a precedent for similar future cases.

Also Read – Orissa High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304-II IPC: “Child Witness Testimony Sufficient to Establish Guilt Even in Absence of Clear Motive”