Friday, August 23, 2019

Supreme Court Held Not Every Failed Promise To Marry Is Rape

The Supreme Court made important remarks (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra) on making physical relations with mutual consent. The court said that if women know that this relationship cannot be taken to any next stage, but even if they make a physical relationship with mutual consent then it cannot be called rape. In such a situation, we cannot say to rape a physical relationship formed by mutual consent by making false promises of marriage.

The bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee dismissed the petition of a woman officer of sales tax on the ground that the relationship between the two was made by mutual consent.

The two judge bench also quashed allegations of rape by a woman on a CRPF officer. The court said in its decision that both were in relationship for more than 8 years. Both of them also stayed at each other's residence on several occasions during this period, which is clear that this relationship was formed by mutual consent.

The woman complainant said that she had known the CRPF officer since 1998. He alleged that the officer forcibly made physical relations by promising to marry in 2008.Till 2016, the two had a relationship and during this time both stayed at each other's residence for several days. 

The complainant says that in 2014, the officer expressed her inability to marry on the basis of woman caste. Even after this, the two had a relationship till 2016. In 2016, the woman lodged a complaint against the officer because she had received information about her engagement with another woman.

Breach of a promise cannot be said to be a false promise

"Cheating by making false promise is a situation in which the person promising does not have any plan to fulfill his tongue while giving promise," the court said.

The court said after studying the FIR closely that the promise of marriage made in 2008 could not be fulfilled in 2016. Only on this basis it cannot be said that the promise of marriage was merely to make a physical relationship.The court also said that the woman complainant also knew that there are many types of hurdles in the marriage. She was fully aware of the circumstances.