In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a married woman cannot claim that her consent for a physical relationship was obtained under the false promise of marriage. The Court, therefore, quashed a rape case filed by a married woman against her alleged partner.
Justice Maninder S Bhatti, while deciding the case Veerendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, stated:
“When the prosecutrix is a married lady, her consent for physical relationship on the garb of false promise of marriage cannot be brought within the framework of consent obtained on the basis of ‘misconception of fact’.”
The case involved a woman who accused the man—who was also married—of rape, alleging that he had promised to marry her after divorcing his wife. The two had been in a relationship for three months, during which they engaged in physical relations whenever her husband was away. However, the accused later refused to divorce his wife, leading to the complaint.
Upon examining the FIR and statements, the Court found no evidence that the accused had pressured the woman into a relationship through a false promise of marriage. The judgment emphasized:
“If the FIR is perused carefully and subjected to microscopic scrutiny, it would reveal that there are no allegations that the present applicant pressurized the prosecutrix to enter into wedlock under the garb of a false promise of marriage.”
Noting that the allegations did not constitute an offense under the relevant sections, the Court ruled that prolonging the case would be an unnecessary legal burden and ordered its immediate dismissal:
“In such a case, the FIR is required to be nipped in the bud, as the same would entail in the long drawn process of conduct of trial whereas the allegations leveled in the FIR on their face value do not indicate the commission of an offense.”
This judgment reinforces the principle that consent obtained by a married woman in such circumstances does not fall under “misconception of fact,” thus setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Case: Veerendra Yadav vs The State of Madhya Pradesh – Available on LAWFYI.IO
