While quashing a rape case, the Supreme Court observed that there is a distinction between a false promise to marriage and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled.
The court noted that, in this case, both parties were admittedly in a consensual relationship from 2009 to 2011. Though the victim contended that this relationship was on an assurance of marriage by the accused, the complaint was filed only in 2016 after three years, which led to the registration of FIR under Section 376 and 420, IPC. The Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by the accused observing that rape 'is said to be an offence against society.
We find ex-facie that the registration of FIR in the present case is an abuse of the criminal process, the bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh observed.
The court observed that permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment of the accused through the criminal process itself. "The parties chose to have a physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time. For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before and after marriage.
Important Point:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 ; Section 375 and 90 - The parties chose to have a physical relationship without marriage for a considerable period of time - For some reason, the parties fell apart. It can happen both before or after marriage - FIR lodged three years thereafter - Permitting further proceedings under the FIR would amount to harassment to the appellant through the criminal process itself Distinction between a false promise to marriage which is given on understanding by the maker that it will be broken and a breach of promise which is made in good faith but subsequently not fulfilled - Referred to Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608.
No comments:
Post a Comment