Breach Of Promise To Marry Not Equivalent To 'False Promise' Which Constitutes Rape: Delhi High Court Explains
While granting bail to a 20 year old in a rape case, the Delhi High Court has explained the difference between false promise to marry and breach of such a promise. Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage while dealing with allegations of rape, emphasising that each case would depend upon its own facts. “There is...
While granting bail to a 20 year old in a rape case, the Delhi High Court has explained the difference between false promise to marry and breach of such a promise.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja said that it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage while dealing with allegations of rape, emphasising that each case would depend upon its own facts.
“There is a difference between making a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas, in case of breach of promise, the possibility that accused might have given a promise with intent to marry her but subsequently might have encountered certain unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage,” the Court said.
The 20 year old was accused of raping his neighbour for two years on the false promise of marriage. It was alleged that he invited the complainant to hotels and maintained physical relations with her on multiple occasions.
She further alleged that each time when the complainant insisted for the marriage, he refused on one or the other pretext. As per the FIR, they went to Tis Hazari Courts for performing the marriage but he left from there on the pretext that he was going to call his parents and did not return back.
It was alleged that the complainant tried to call the parents of the petitioner but their phone was unavailable.
Granting bail to the accused, Justice Dudeja noted that relationship between him and the complainant was consensual. The Court said that the WhatsApp chats indicated a pattern of mutual affection and voluntary participation rather than coercion or deception.
It said that there were messages from the complainant threatening self-harm and forcing the accused to marry her, which prima facie, showed that the relationship deteriorated over time and ultimately turned acrimonious.
“The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations under Section 376 IPC. However, it is equally well-settled that criminal law cannot
be used as an instrument of coercion or revenge when a consensual relationship turns sour,” the Court said.
It added: “The protection of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, must remain paramount, especially when the allegations appear to be exaggerated or motivated.”
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Mr. Ishwar Singh Deepak, Mr. Jeet Chakralarti, Ms. Ayesha Zaidi, Advs
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. for complainant
Title: SUMIT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI