Jharkhand High Court's Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi's bench has given this decision after hearing a case on Tuesday, December 6.
This decision has given birth to a new debate about whether it would be rape to have a relationship with a married woman on the pretext of marriage? If a man does this, is he a rapist in the eyes of the law? Let us understand this whole matter through the decision of the High Court…
First, know the whole matter
In November 2019, the posting of the accused person was done at the Sarwan fair in the Deoghar district. During this, for the first time, he met the victim woman at her father's shop.
After this, the conversation started between the two. The accused person came to know that the woman is married and filed a petition for divorce from her husband in court.
Gradually, the closeness between the two started increasing. Many times both of them also transacted money through Google Pay. According to case number 6 of Deoghar Mahila Police Station in 2021, the accused man had sexual relations with a married woman on several occasions by promising marriage after divorce.
On 3 December 2019, the man also put a garland around the woman's neck, but on 11 February 2021, reneging on his promise, the man refused to marry.
After this, the woman filed a case against the man under three sections 406, 420, 376 (2) (N) of IPC. On November 24, 2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Deoghar district ordered action in this matter, then the accused person reached the Jharkhand High Court to end the case.
Now read the arguments of both sides in the court…
Prachi Pradipti, the lawyer of the accused person said in the High Court-
In her statement under section 164 of CrPC, the woman has accepted that she was married when the accused had sex and that her petition for divorce from her husband was pending in court. In such a situation, the question of wooing the woman for marriage does not arise.
Along with this, advocate Prachi said in favor of the accused person that both the people are adults and mature. Both have consensual sexual relations, in such a situation, now a case cannot be registered against the person under section 376 (2) (N) of the IPC.
Arguing on behalf of the married woman, Advocate Sumit Prakash said-
'The man, who has filed a petition in his defense in the High Court, has had sexual relations with a woman on a false promise of marriage. That is why the Chief Judicial Magistrate also ordered action against the person under relevant sections after hearing the case.
Advocate Sumit further said that the District Judicial Court has also cited several decisions of the Supreme Court and said that if someone turns away after having sex on the pretext of marriage, then it will be considered an offense under Section 376 of the IPC.
The mother of the accused person had also filed a case against the woman
It is mentioned in the High Court's decision that Suman Devi, the mother of the accused person, had also filed a case against the woman who had accused her son.
A case was registered against the woman on 18 February 2021 under 9 sections of IPC- 147, 341, 323, 380, 406, 420, 452, 504, 34.
The mother of the accused person had said in her complaint that the woman was married and both had a consensual relationship. In such a situation, the case of rape lodged against her son is false.
Jharkhand High Court made this comment after the hearing
Jharkhand High Court in its observation said that-
'The statement given by the woman under section 164 of CrPC has been made the basis of the judgment. When the woman was married and her divorce case was in court, at the same time she had sex with a man other than her husband and both of them consented to it. Unless there is a divorce between the husband and the wife, the promise of marriage is not legally valid. In such a situation, after looking at the facts, it is known that in this case the person cannot be made accused under Section 376 (2) (N) of IPC.
Also opposed the imposition of section 420 of the IPC
The High Court said that it does not appear that the man had lured or tricked the woman in any way. Section 420 of IPC is applicable only when something is done to deceive from the very beginning.
Also said that the person may have met the woman only to cheat or may have had such an intention since the meeting. This is not evident from the copy of the case.
After this, the High Court gave the decision to stop the action of the lower court. Also, the matter was once again sent to the lower court for fresh consideration in this matter.
