The Bombay High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Sandeep Shinde refused to discharge a man accused of rape and cheating after he cited astrological incompatibility as an excuse to renege on his promise to marry the complainant woman with whom he was in a relationship. (Avishek Asit Mitra v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
Facts of the case.
According to the facts of the case, the defendant and the plaintiff have known each other since 2012, when they worked and had a relationship at a five-star hotel. The petitioner alleged that the accused had indulged in a physical relationship with her several times by promising marriage.
The petitioner also claimed that when she became pregnant and asked Mitra to marry her, he refused, saying they were still young and forced her to have an abortion.
In December 2012, she filed a police complaint when the accused began avoiding her. Police then called the accused, counseling the duo, and Mitra told police in January 2013 that he would marry her.
However, according to the prosecution, the accused turned back within a few days after the previous complaint was taken back, after which police registered cases of rape and misconduct.
The Applicant’s application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C was filed before the Bombay High Court.
Contention of the Parties
The Counsel for the applicant contended that there was absolutely no intent on Mitra’s part not to marry the complainant or that his promise to marry her was false.
He relied upon conversations between the woman and the accused's father and argued that the family at one point was willing to get the couple married subject to religious prohibitions. And since their horoscopes didn't match, relations could not be furthered. Thus he claimed it was a case of breach of promise and not the false promise of marriage.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench refused to accept the allegation, related to the astrological compatibility stating that there were sources suggesting that the accused had no intention of upholding his promise to marry the plaintiff from the beginning.
The bench said, “It is clear that the applicant (Mitra) avoided the (marriage) promise under the guise of horoscope astrology incompatibility. Therefore, it is clearly the case of a false promise of marriage that undermines the petitioner’s consent. I’m sure it is."
The bench further stated that the court had assured plaintiffs that Miter would marry her when she approached police only to avoid a proceeding against him.
The Judge noted, "In the case at hand, there is sufficient material to suggest that since the inception, the applicant had no intention of upholding his promise to marry the complainant...It is apparent that the applicant in the guise of astrological incompatibility of the horoscopes avoided the promise.
Thus, I am convinced...it is a case of false promise to marry which apparently vitiates the complainant's consent".
The court noted that the entire conversation that the counsel had referred to happened after the girl had withdrawn her first complaint and the man had refused to marry her.
The court observed, "Prima facie I am of the view that the applicant prevailed over the complainant to withdraw her first complaint lodged in December, 2012 by promising that he would marry her. However, his intentions were otherwise. Had intentions were bonafide and true, the applicant would not have addressed a letter to Mr. Parulekar (Counsellor) and resiled from his promise to marry the complainant. Notably, this letter was addressed to Counsellor within twelve days from the date on which complainant withdrew her first complaint."
The court relied on the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) where the Supreme Court has held, 'a breach of promise to marry cannot, be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his words at the time of giving it.'
The court said that it was a settled law that while considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227, the Court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima-facie case against the accused has been made out.
The bench rejecting the petition noted, "The facts emerging from the material/documents on record taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all ingredients constituting an alleged offence under Section 376 of the IPC. For these reasons, the application deserves no consideration."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
