The single judge bench of Justice Gita Gopi of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rohit Dinanath Ray Vs State of Gujarat quashes the rape case filed against the applicant on the false pretext of marriage as the applicant was aware of the fact that the complainant was a married lady and still chose to be in relationship with the applicant. so, at the inception of the relationship, there would not have been any promise to marry, for the complainant to give consent for physical relation on the basis of promise.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant came into contact with the complainant through Facebook and after that, the applicant proposed the complaint that he is in love with her and thereafter, started talking with her on WhatsApp. Furthermore, the applicant promised the complainant to marry her and developed a physical relationship with the complainant. The husband of the complainant gave her divorce after the applicant informed the husband of the complainant about his relationship with the complainant. Thereafter the complainant still continues to develop physical relationships with the applicant on various occasions. The applicant refused to marry her and the complainant filed the FIR which was later quashed on her consent as the applicant promised to marry her.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the complainant has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case with a malafide intention and ulterior motive. It was furthermore submitted that no violation of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has been established, the FIR was filed after a considerable amount of time, and nothing to support allegations of rape has been established in the FIR. Also, Section 90 of the IPC cannot come to the aid of imposing any criminal liability on the applicant.
Contentions of the Complainant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that the applicant-accused must appear at the trial in order to give the complainant the chance to present documents and pertinent evidence to support the case against the accused. Furthermore, it was submitted that the FIR was quashed with the consent of the complainant which was obtained on the false promise of marriage. At last, it was submitted that an offence of rape would be made out against the accused as the relationship was founded on a misunderstanding of the facts because the applicant had no intention whatsoever of marrying the complainant and had instead proceeded with the sexual relations under a false pretext and assurance of marriage.
Observations of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that a promise must have been made with no intention of keeping it, in order for it to be proven to be false. Due to a factual misunderstanding, the consent granted under Section 375 of the IPC is invalid. In the present case, the complainant was in a relationship with the applicant even while she was still married. She was already having sexual relations with the applicant while still married. The applicant could not have made an offer to marry the complainant because she was already married, and neither could the complainant.
It was furthermore observed that in order for rape to occur, the circumstances must satisfy one of the seven descriptions. In this case, the complainant claims that she agreed to the relationship on the basis of the promise of marriage. Since Section 90 of the IPC makes it clear that consent based on a misperception of the facts is not consent at all, the complainant's consent based on a misperception of the facts, i.e., the promise of marriage, is invalid.
The Hon’ble Court relied upon the judgments titled Kaini Rajan vs. State of Kerala, Deepak Gulati Vs State of Haryana, Anurag Soni vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, XYZ vs. State of Gujarat, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs State of Haryana, and Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another.
It was noted that the complainant was very well aware of the pros and cons of the relation and the FIR was quashed on the consent of the complainant and the complainant had not secured any assurance of marriage while withdrawing the charges.
Based on these considerations, the hon’ble court was of the view that there is no sufficient evidence to pursue the case against the applicant and it was a case of consensual sex.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court allowed the present application.
Case Title: Rohit Dinanath Ray Vs State of Gujarat
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Gita Gopi
Citation: R/Criminal Rev. Application No. 434 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Ashish B Desai, Adv.
Advocate for the Complainant: Mr. Divyansh A Ramani, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
