The Delhi High Court orders framing of charge against a man under sections 376/506 for breach of twin promise of marriage.

The Delhi High Court has recently ordered framing of charges against a man under sections 376 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code while setting aside the order of the Sessions Court discharging the man. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present Revision Petition before the High Court of Delhi is that the woman and the accused were both respectively married to their partners, however both were not satisfied with their married lives and hence they decided to divorce their respective partners and get married to each other. It was the case of the woman in her First Information Report and also before the Trial and the High Court that the man with the promise of marrying her had established physical relations with her and later on refused to marry her when she had already divorced her husband. However, the case of the accused man before the Trial Court as well as the High Court was that this was not a case of false promise of marriage but a case of breach of promise to marry. The accused man was discharged by the Trial/Sessions Court which noted that consent of the petitioner / woman was given after active and reasoned deliberation and that accused/man and the petitioner/woman had been in sexual relationship out of love, and consent for sexual relationship was not given out of misconception of fact. The Sessions Court also observed that this case pertains to breach of promise of marriage, rather than a false promise of marriage. 
 
The Court observed thus:
 
As this Court has observed in many cases, each case has to be judged on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Cases as the present one are not commercial cases or business transaction cases, where two plus two may lead to four or there could be a straight jacket formula to decide such cases. The cases involving emotional situations where the parties of the story have taken decisions and acted upon them on the basis of peculiar circumstances of their lives, have to be adjudged and adjudicated according to their own peculiarity and situational dissection of facts 
 
It is thus a case of twin promise of marriage, i.e. to the complainant as well as her husband and family. Had he not promised or represented her, she would not have entered into physical relations with him. It is to be proved during trial whether it was breach of promise to marry or false promise to marry for the purpose of sexual relationship and a mini trial could not have been conducted to reach this decision at the stage of framing of charge itself.
 
The acts of the respondent no. 2, thus, point out at this stage prima facie that he had given promise to the petitioner to get married to her and had stayed with her on this promise acting on which she had not only divorced her husband but had also indulged in sexual relationship with him to attract the rigors of Section 376 of IPC. As regards discharge of respondent no. 2 under Section 506 of IPC, this Court notes that there are specific allegations in the FIR that on 20.05.2021, the respondent no. 2 had refused to marry the petitioner and had abused as well as threatened to kill her and her children. The respondent no. 2 had again extended such threats on 01.06.2021, after which the petitioner was compelled to approach Delhi Commission for Women and police. 

 X v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.