False Promise of Marriage and Consent: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Charges

The case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. revolves around the legal interpretation of consent under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether a false promise of marriage could vitiate consent and constitute rape under Section 376 of the IPC. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, quashing the FIR and setting an important precedent on the issue of consent in sexual relationships.

Background of the Case

The complainant, a government officer, filed an FIR on May 17, 2016, against the appellant, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

According to the complainant:

She and the appellant had known each other since 1998 and had a romantic relationship since 2004.
The appellant proposed marriage in 2008, allegedly assuring her that caste differences would not be a hindrance.
On January 23, 2009, at Patnadevi Temple, he reaffirmed his commitment to marry her.
In November 2009, she initially resisted engaging in sexual intercourse, but the appellant allegedly coerced her with the promise of marriage.
They continued their relationship for six years, during which they lived together, traveled, and engaged in sexual relations.
In 2013, the appellant started expressing concerns about their inter-caste marriage.
Despite their disputes, they continued their sexual relationship until March 2015.
On March 9, 2016, the appellant allegedly forced himself on her against her will.
She later discovered that the appellant had married another woman on May 1, 2016.

The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court dismissed his plea on February 7, 2019, stating that the allegations indicated a prima facie case of rape based on a false promise of marriage.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar):

The complainant was in a consensual relationship with him for over six years.
Their relationship involved multiple periods of cohabitation and mutual visits.
The complainant was aware of caste-related obstacles as early as 2008.
She continued the relationship despite the appellant’s expressed concerns about marriage.
There was no evidence that the promise of marriage was made in bad faith at the outset.
The promise was not false at the time it was made; rather, circumstances changed over time.

Respondents (State of Maharashtra & Complainant):

The appellant manipulated the complainant emotionally and physically.
He engaged in sexual relations with her solely to fulfill his desires.
The promise of marriage was fraudulent and aimed at deceiving her.
He intentionally used caste as an excuse to back out of the marriage.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined whether the complainant’s consent was obtained under a “misconception of fact” due to the appellant’s promise of marriage.

“Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act.”

The Court distinguished between a false promise made with the intent to deceive and a promise made in good faith that later could not be fulfilled.

“Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a ‘misconception of fact’ that vitiates the woman’s ‘consent.’”

The Court also noted that:

The complainant was in an intimate relationship with the appellant for years, even after he expressed concerns about their marriage.
She continued to engage in sexual relations with him long after realizing that their marriage was uncertain.
There was no indication that the promise of marriage was false at the time it was made.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the Bombay High Court’s order.

“The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise.”

The Court also held that the WhatsApp messages allegedly sent by the appellant in 2015 could not attract the SC/ST Act as the provisions invoked were not in force at the time.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

A breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape.
A promise of marriage must have been false at the time it was made to vitiate consent.
A long-term consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively converted into rape merely because the marriage did not materialize.
The prosecution must prove that the accused never intended to marry at the outset.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling provides clarity on false promises of marriage and consent under the IPC. It ensures that false rape charges are not weaponized against individuals who genuinely intended to marry but later could not due to unforeseen circumstances. It also reinforces the principle that adults engaging in consensual relationships must take responsibility for their choices.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case sets an important precedent in cases of alleged rape based on a false promise of marriage. By distinguishing between genuine relationship disputes and criminal acts, the ruling upholds the principles of justice and prevents the misuse of rape laws. This judgment will serve as a guiding principle for courts dealing with similar cases in the future.

Petitioner Name: Pramod Suryabhan Pawar.
Respondent Name: The State of Maharashtra & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Indira Banerjee.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 21-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Pramod Suryabhan Paw vs The State of Maharas Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Rape Cases
See all petitions in SC/ST Act Case
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category