The High Court noted that the complainant may have had reason to file a complaint in 2010 when the physical relationship first began – if it had started on the pretext that the man would marry her.
However, the Court observed, the relationship continued until 2020 with no complaint being lodged until 2021 when the man refused to marry her. It was difficult to believe that the physical relationship had continued on a false promise to marry, the Court opined.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioner that he developed physical relation with the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage. It is also difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship, which continued for over 10 years, as ‘rape’ especially in the facts of the complainant’s own allegation,” the Court said.
The Court also reiterated that there is a difference between a “false promise of marriage” and a breach of a genuine promise to marry.
“There may, of course, be circumstances, when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances,” the Court said.
In such cases, a woman cannot claim that she was under a misconception of fact when she entered into a physical relationship, the Court added.
“In order to come within the meaning of the term ‘misconception of fact’, the fact must have an immediate relevance. Section 90 IPC cannot be called into aid in such a situation, to pardon the act of a girl in entirety,” the Court explained.
Source: Barandbench
