The Court observed that consent between parties for sexual relations was not simply based on promise to marry but was a consensual relationship.
"There is no allegation in the First Information Report that when applicant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith and intention to decisive her. The said fact is established from the long-standing physical relationship between the parties. The applicant’s failure to fulfil his promise to marry cannot be construed to mean, the promise itself was false," the Court said.
After examining the contents in the FIR, Justice SP Tavade noted that it did not prima facie indicate that the promise by the applicant was false or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise.
"There is no allegation in FIR that when applicant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith and intention to deceive her, which is established from the long-standing physical relationship between the parties. The applicant’s failure to fulfil his promise to marry cannot be construed to mean, the promise itself was false," the order recorded.
No comments:
Post a Comment