CASE NAME: MAHESH DAMU KHARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
CASE NO.: SLP (CRL.) NO. 4326 OF 2018
DATED: November 26, 2024
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, a social worker, approached the High Court seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged by the respondent under Sections 376, 420, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She is a widow who complained that the appellant had exploited her for almost a decade (2008–2017) on the pretext of marriage. She alleged the accused initially assisted her at times of distress and thereafter cheated her promising to marry and provide financial support to her. She alleged the case ended when the accused refused to marry her and stopped providing financial help whereupon she lodged the FIR against the accused. The appellant also denied the allegations wherein she alleged that the relationship had been consensual and it had been filed as a case of retaliation after money-making stopped.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
After hearing the arguments, several issues were framed: –
- Whether the sexual relationship between the appellant and the respondent was consensual or based on a false promise of marriage, amounting to rape under Section 376 IPC?
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed an offence within the meanings of Sections 420, 504, and 506 of the IPC?
- Whether the criminal proceedings were an abuse of judicial process?
LEGAL PROVISION
- Section 482, Cr.P.C.: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the High Court inherent powers, as it allows the High Court to make necessary orders to give effect to any order, preventing the abuse of court proceedings and securing the end of justice.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: The case was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC, respectively.
CONTENTION BY THE APPELLANT
In this case, the Appellant argued that the relationship was consensual as they spent almost a decade together with no objections and that claims of sexual exploitation were in fact fabricated in retaliation when he stopped providing financial support. He further argued that such a long time could never be used to suggest or give any impression of being forced or made false promises.
CONTENTION BY THE RESPONDENT
The respondent pleaded that she was deceived into the relationship through false promises of marriage which defeated her consent. The State pleaded that whether the relationship was one of mutual consent or on the basis of a false promise, investigation was required as the consent of the complainant was vitiated by misconception caused under Section 90 of the IPC.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the appellant, holding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of rape under Section 376 IPC or other charges under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC. This near-decade-long relationship did not stir protest and complaint from the respondent was of a consensual nature and did not depict an instance of force or any false promise to wed. It was emphasized that for a promise to vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC, it must be proved that the promise was false from the beginning and was made with an intention to deceive, which was not the case here. The judgment brought out that continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process and set aside the decision of the Bombay High Court and allowed the appeal of the appellant.
ANALYSIS
The case goes on to show the necessity of distinguishing between consensual relationships and criminal liability based on false promises of marriage. It was argued that the promise made here would only vitiate the consent under Section 90 of the IPC if it is proved to be false right from the inception and would also directly induce the relationship. The Court observed that the long lapse of time in the relationship and the respondent not uttering a word for the last nine years weakened the allegations. Notably, the Court while dealing with the case warned people not to misuse criminal legislation to settle grievances arising from consensual relationships gone wrong. By quashing the FIR, the judgment reinforced that only clear evidence of deceit or coercion could criminalize such relationships while discouraging the weaponization of criminal processes in personal disputes.
CONCLUSION
The judgment brings to the fore the necessity of weighing the context and evidence in allegations of sexual exploitation. It reminds us that the misuse of criminal laws in consensual disputes is harmful to judicial credibility. It prevents criminalization of long-standing consensual relationships when allegations come belatedly without corroboration.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHAKCHI VERMA
