A married woman cannot accuse someone of rape based on a false promise of marriage, according to the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has decided that a married woman cannot claim rape simply because her consent for a sexual relationship was based on a false promise of marriage. Justice Maninder S. Bhatti, in a Single Bench ruling, dismissed a rape case brought by a married woman, stating that such claims do not meet the legal definition of consent obtained through “misconception of fact.” The Court noted, “When the woman involved is married, her consent for a physical relationship based on a false promise of marriage does not qualify as consent under ‘misconception of fact.’”
Advocate Shreyash Pandit represented the Applicant, while Advocate Shailendra Mishra represented the Respondent. The case involved a complaint from a married woman with two children, who claimed that the accused, also married, had promised to marry her after divorcing his wife, which led to a consensual sexual relationship. However, he later said he could not divorce his wife. The Court reviewed the woman’s account, noting that the relationship lasted three months, during which the accused visited her when her husband was not home. The Court found no proof that the accused pressured or misled the woman into thinking he would marry her. “The FIR, upon close examination, does not show any claims that the applicant forced the woman to marry under a false promise,” the Court stated.
The Single Bench stated that the FIR should be stopped early because it would lead to a lengthy trial process. The allegations in the FIR do not show any crime under the mentioned sections. The Court decided that the claims did not amount to rape and canceled the FIR, noting that continuing the case would lead to an unnecessary trial without clear evidence. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was approved. The FIR from Crime No.136/2024 at Police Station Bada Malhar in District Chhattarpur and any related proceedings were dismissed. The applicant is cleared of these charges, and any bail or surety bonds provided by the applicant are also canceled.
Cause Title: Veerendra Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-JBP:6370]
