Consensual Physical Relations Cannot Be Termed Rape on Breach of Marriage Promise: Bombay High Court

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in the case of Gaurav s/o Ravi Wankhede vs. State of Maharashtra & Another, has observed that consensual physical relations cannot be termed as rape merely on the ground of a breach of a promise to marry. The judgment delivered on January 30, 2024, in Criminal Application No. 45 of 2023, has set a precedent in cases involving the promise of marriage.

Justice M.W. Chandwani, while discharging the applicant Gaurav from the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the IPC, meticulously distinguished between a false promise made at the outset and a mere breach of such a promise. The Court noted, “There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex... If the accused has not made the promise with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.”

This case stemmed from an FIR lodged by a woman alleging that Gaurav had established physical relations with her under a false promise of marriage. However, on examining the evidence, including WhatsApp chats and the FIR’s allegations, the Court found that both parties initially consented to marriage. The Court observed, “Even the allegations in the F.I.R. do not on their face value indicate that the promise by the applicant was false.”

The Court relied on the landmark judgments of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. And Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar vs. State of Maharashtra, reiterating the principle that mere breach of a marriage promise does not automatically lead to the conclusion of rape. Justice Chandwani further pointed out that the continuation of proceedings against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law, applying the guidelines from State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal.

Date of Decision: 30th January 2024

GAURAV VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA