Misconceived Consent Obtained On False Promise Of Marriage Constitutes Rape Under IPC: J&K High Court
Live LawThe Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated the legal principle that a promise to marry made with no intention of fulfillment, which induces consent for sexual intercourse, amounts to consent obtained under a misconception of fact. Dismissing a plea by one accused Sat Paul, seeking quashing of the FIR filed against him for alleged offences under Sections 376 and 420 IPC Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed, “. whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary or whether it is given under misconception of fact depends on the facts of each case and in considering the question of consent, the Court is bound to consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances before reaching a conclusion… Thus, under these circumstances, at the threshold stage, it cannot be decided by this Court, in exercise of inherent power, as to whether the consent was given voluntarily” These observations came in a case originating from allegations by Shamo Devi, who accused Sat Paul of exploiting her trust and emotions. Citing Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, which differentiates between a mere breach of promise and a false promise made with fraudulent intent the Court held that the petitioner's conduct aligned with the latter, as the evidence suggested that he had no genuine intention of marrying the complainant. Observing that the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences warranting a full investigation and trial Justice Wani stressed that the High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.