The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings filed against a man accused of serious offences including cheating, rape, causing miscarriage and criminal intimidation on the basis of an alleged false promise to marry, holding that a long-term consensual relationship cannot be converted into a rape prosecution simply because the relationship later failed and marriage did not materialise. The petitioner, identified as Anirban Mukherjee, had sought a revision of the criminal case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Paschim Medinipur under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to cheating by inducing a belief to marry, rape and causing miscarriage. In its order, the High Court examined the factual matrix of the case and observed that the parties had engaged in a consensual intimate relationship for nearly five years, during which they travelled together, stayed in hotels and lived in a manner akin to husband and wife, reflecting mutual consent and involvement rather than any deception from the outset.
The prosecution’s narrative was that the complainant and the petitioner developed a romantic relationship in 2017, and in 2018 the petitioner allegedly forced her to consume liquor and sexually assaulted her. It was further alleged that he continued the relationship on the assurance of marriage, that she later became pregnant, and that the petitioner compelled her to undergo a medical termination of pregnancy before refusing to fulfil his promise of marriage while threatening to make her private photographs public. Based on these allegations, a charge sheet was filed under relevant provisions of the penal code, and the petitioner challenged the continuation of these proceedings by way of a revision petition before the High Court.
In his defence before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the complainant was a major, educated adult who voluntarily continued the relationship over several years, travelling with him to various destinations and consenting to the termination of pregnancy, thereby demonstrating that the relationship was consensual throughout its duration. He submitted that the essential ingredients of the offences of rape or sexual assault on the basis of a false promise to marry were not made out, as there was no evidence to show that the promise was false from the very inception or that consent was obtained by fraud. The petitioner’s counsel relied on established legal principles and precedents emphasising that for a promise to marry to vitiate consent, it must be shown that the promise was made without any intention of fulfilling it at the time it was given, rather than arising as a later breach in a relationship that was otherwise consensual.
After considering the case diary, statements recorded under the Code of Criminal Procedure, medical records and travel details, the High Court found that the relationship between the parties had been sustained for several years without contemporaneous complaints, and that the alleged incidents of non-consensual acts did not comport with the pattern of voluntary travel and co-habitation documented over an extended period. The termination of pregnancy was found to have been undertaken with the complainant’s consent and with the petitioner signing as guardian, further undermining claims that the pregnancy was compelled against her will. The court observed that despite the prosecution’s allegations, the complainant continued to travel and stay with the petitioner on numerous occasions, which was inconsistent with an assertion of lack of consent or misconception of fact vitiating consent from the beginning.
The bench, while applying legal principles on consent and false promises, reiterated that mere continuation of an intimate relationship, even one founded on expectations of future marriage, does not ipso facto amount to rape if there is no evidence that the promise was false at its inception or that the consent was obtained only because of a fraudulent assurance of marriage. Reference was made to established jurisprudence which clarifies that although a promise to marry may form part of the factual background, only where it is demonstrated that such promise was given without any intention to fulfil it can it be considered to vitiate consent under law. A failure to marry after a prolonged consensual relationship does not automatically create a misconception of fact sufficient to constitute an offence of rape, and the absence of foundational ingredients of the charged offences means continuation of prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Having found that the prosecution’s case lacked essential elements to sustain charges under the penal provisions invoked, and that the continuation of the proceedings would be unjust, the Calcutta High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the entire case against the petitioner. The court held that the criminal proceedings did not disclose prima facie material constituting the alleged offences, given the consensual nature of the relationship and the absence of evidence of fraudulent intent at the outset. The High Court’s order effectively ends the criminal litigation against the petitioner in relation to these allegations, reinforcing the legal position that consensual adult relationships and subsequent breakdown of such relationships, including unfulfilled expectations of marriage, cannot be retrospectively criminalised as rape in the absence of initial deception. The proceedings were identified in court records as Anirban Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Another, and the bench’s ruling provides clarity on the application of consent principles in the context of long-standing intimate relationships.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.