“The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry,” with this striking observation, the Himachal Pradesh High Court delved into the complex intersection of law, consent, and long-term relationships in a case involving allegations of rape, cheating, and dowry demands. The judgment raises concerns about the legal threshold for framing charges in cases of alleged false promise to marry.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a complaint by a woman whose identity is withheld, alleging that the accused, with whom her marriage was fixed in 2014, established sexual relations on the false promise of marriage. The accused allegedly coerced her into intercourse during a 2015 trip to Shimla and continued relations during visits to Chandigarh, once assaulting her for refusing intimacy. Despite repeated postponements of the wedding and alleged dowry demands of ₹5 lakhs and a vehicle, met by the informant’s family through land sale, the marriage did not take place. An FIR was registered, and the investigation revealed evidence supporting the allegations. Charges were framed under Sections 376(2)(n), 417/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The accused challenged the order before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a revision petition.
Contentions of Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred in framing charges as the charge sheet lacked sufficient material. He contended that the informant, a 30-year-old mature woman, was in a consensual relationship with the accused for over five years following their 2014 marriage agreement and 2015 betrothal. He maintained there was no evidence of deception or dishonest intent by the accused. On the dowry allegation, he noted that Up-Pradhan Dinesh Thakur did not confirm any demand of ₹5.00 lacs or a vehicle, and the accused was not present during the alleged demand. He cited Mauvin Godinho v. State of Goa and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra to argue that long-term consensual relationships negate false promises to marry claims.
Contentions of Respondent:
The Deputy Advocate General for the State contended that the petitioner made a false promise to marry the informant, inducing her into a physical relationship, thereby justifying the rape charge under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. He argued that the material on record established a prima facie case sufficient for framing charges, emphasizing that the prosecution’s evidence indicated the accused’s lack of serious intent to marry and the dowry demands by his family. He urged the Court to dismiss the revision petition, asserting that the learned Trial Court’s decision to frame charges was supported by the investigation’s findings.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court, meticulously examined the material presented by the prosecution to determine whether sufficient grounds existed to frame charges against the petitioner, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Reinforcing the legal principle articulated by the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023), which mandates that at the stage of framing charges, the court must assess whether the prosecution’s material establishes a prima facie case, without delving into the accused’s defence. The Court emphasized, “It is trite law that the application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed.”
Regarding the charge under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Court found no evidence implicating the petitioner directly in the alleged demand for ₹5.00 lacs and a vehicle, noting, “it is apparent that as per the statements of eyewitnesses, the demand was not made by Raj Kumar, and there was no material before the learned Trial Court to frame charges against the petitioner/accused Raj Kumar for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.”
While addressing the charge of rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Damu Khare vI. State of Maharashtra (2024), clarified that a prolonged consensual relationship undermines the claim of a false promise to marry. The Court observed, “The fact that the parties maintained a relationship for five long years would make it difficult to hold that the sexual relationship was based upon a promise to marry.” Further, the Court observed, “Moreover, even if it is assumed that a false promise of marriage was made to the complainant initially by the appellant, even though no such cogent evidence has been brought on record before us to that effect, the fact that the relationship continued for nine long years, would render the plea of the complainant that her consent for all these years was under misconception of fact that the Appellant would marry her implausible.”
The Court further addressed the charge under Section 417of the IPC, found no evidence in the FIR or charge sheet to support the claim that ₹5.00 lacs was paid to the accused, and stated, “There is no recital in the FIR or the charge sheet that ₹5.00 lacs were demanded at the time of construction of the house. It was only stated that a demand of ₹5.00 lacs was made by the accused. The statement of the victim’s mother nowhere shows that ₹5.00 lacs were paid by her.”
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the High Court allowed the revision petition, while setting aside the order passed by the Fast Track Court and discharged the petitioner, from the charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, finding insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the petition and would not affect the merits of the case.
Case Title: Raj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 524 of 2024
Coram: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. B.L. Soni
Counsel for Respondent: AAG Ajit Sharma
Picture Source :
