The Supreme Court holds that an offence of rape was made out if the consent of the woman was based on false promise of marriage from inception.

The Supreme Court has quashed a First Information Report registered against the appellant, boy at the instance of the second respondent, girl for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2), 377, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and various clauses of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The Second Respondent, girl claimed that the Appellant, boy had maintained physical relationship with her from the year 2011 till the year 2017 on the pretext of marriage. However in the year 2018 she found that the boy had married another girl.The Appellant boy had on the contrary produced a Nikahnama insisting that he had already married the second respondent, girl. The Appellant had also deposited a sum of Rs.10 lakhs during the pendency of the petition before the High Court.

The Supreme Court held thus:

“If this material, which is a part of the investigation papers, is perused carefully, it is obvious that the physical relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was consensual, at least from 2013 to 2017. The fact that they were engaged was admitted by the second respondent. The fact that in 2011, the appellant proposed to her and in 2017, there was engagement is accepted by the second respondent. In fact, she participated in the engagement ceremony without any protest. However, she has denied that her marriage was solemnised with the appellant. 

Taking the prosecution case as correct, it is not possible to accept that the second respondent maintained a physical relationship only because the appellant had given a promise of marriage. Thus, in our view, the continuation of the prosecution in the present case will be a gross abuse of the process of law. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution. 

The appellant has accepted that the second respondent is his legally wedded wife and the child born to the second respondent is his child. We, therefore, propose to direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the second respondent. This will be without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to claim maintenance for herself and for her daughter from the appellant in accordance with law. 

We propose to direct that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- already deposited by the appellant with the High Court shall be invested appropriately till the child attains majority. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 26th February 2021 is hereby quashed and set aside. Crime No. 78 of 2018 registered with Sadar Police Station at Nagpur, as well as the charge sheet filed on the basis of the same, and further proceedings of the case stand quashed. 

SHEIKH ARIF VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & A