Seduction on false assurance to marry: Bombay HC dismisses plea to quash criminal proceedings for rape [Read Judgment]

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a plea to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape on allegations that he seduced the woman (complainant) on a false assurance to marry her (Mohammed Aamir Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors). .The Division Bench comprising of Justices Sunil B Shukre and Madhav J Jamdar observed that,."Here, the misconception has been created not because of giving of a false promise of marriage but because of giving of a false assurance to the respondent No.2 that the applicant had his genuine and exclusive love for respondent No.2 which made respondent No.2 believe that the applicant, whenever time would come, would not ditch her and would support her wholeheartedly. But that was not to happen. When the time indeed came, the applicant showed his true colors and stoutly refused to marry respondent No.2.".The High Court proceeded to hold that this was sufficient to gauge that the complainant's consent for physical relations was on the basis if a misconception. The judgment explains,."A person who expresses such words for another creates an impression in the mind of the another that the person exclusively belongs to another and that the person, would not cheat another at any point of time, and when it is seen that those words were not really meant by the person, it would, in our opinion, lead to formation of a prima-facie inference regarding the consent having been given under misconception of fact."Bombay High Court.In this case, the Court was told that the applicant made an express promise to marry the complainant when her servant became aware of the affair and threatened to tell her mother about the same..Prior to this, the High Court was informed that the complainant was initially "unwilling to fall prey to the advances made towards her by the applicant." She later agreed to have sexual relations, not out of her deep love and passion, the Court observed, but on an assurance that the applicant exclusively loved her..“It is true that applicant has not given any express promise of marriage initially but it is also true that respondent No.2 had initially resisted the applicants overtures towards her on the ground that before marriage, there could be no physical relationship. It was only after such refusal of respondent No.2 that the applicant, in order to seduce her into agreeing to have sexual relationship with him, told her that he loved only the respondent No.2 and nobody else…”Bombay High Court.To decided on the plea, the High Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar and Anr v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, wherein it was said,."The Court, in such cases, must very carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the later falls within the ambit of cheating or deception.”Supreme Court in Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar's case.It was noted that the Supreme Court had cautioned that it is only when the sole intention of making a promise to marry was to seduce a woman, that such an act would amount to rape. .On the other hand it would not be rape, where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her "love and passion", and not on the misconception of marriage created by the accused, or "where an accused, on account of circumstances which he could not have foreseen or which were beyond his control, was unable to marry her despite having every intention to do.".In this case, however, the High Court found that prima-facie, the applicant appeared to have had a malafide intention and clandestine motives in seducing the complainant into physical relationship that she initially was unwilling to enter into. .Therefore, the application to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed. On a concluding note, the High Court added that the Trial Court was not to be influenced any of the High Court's observations while deciding the main case..[Read the Judgement]