Signing you in

Justice Mitali Thakuria was dealing with a plea by the man who sought to set aside the charges and criminal proceedings against him in the case. “From the chargesheet, it is revealed that during the entire investigation, the accused/petitioner has never cooperated, and hence he is shown as an absconder in the Charge Sheet. It is an undisputed fact that the victim was a married woman, but the accused promised to marry her, and with such inducement, he had sexual intercourse with her,” the court said on August 28.

The judge noted that the victim, a married woman, developed a relationship with the accused only over the promise of marriage. Thus, it is seen that the complainant could bring a preliminary case against the accused that he had sexual intercourse with her over a false promise of marriage and her consent was taken under such a misconception, the court observed.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the woman before the chief judicial magistrate alleging that the accused, who used to visit her house, induced her into a relationship by threatening to kill himself and promising to marry her. She alleged that in April 2023, he took her to his house, confined her there for about 15 days, and raped her on the false promise of marriage.

The accused then approached the high court seeking to quash the chargesheet and criminal proceedings, arguing that the relationship was consensual and there was no basis for the allegations of rape, cheating or criminal conspiracy.

The court noted the allegation that the petitioner confined the complainant in his house for about 15 days and had sexual intercourse with her on the false promise of marriage. On these allegations, the court found that a preliminary case was disclosed that her consent may have been obtained under a misconception of fact.

The judge clarified that at this stage, the court could not determine whether the petitioner genuinely intended to marry her or had made the promise with an intention to cheat. That issue would require examination at the appropriate stage of the criminal proceedings.

The court further observed that the case was at a premature stage. The magistrate had only taken cognisance, and charges had not yet been framed. Therefore, it could not be presumed that the eventual charges would necessarily correspond to the sections mentioned in the chargesheet.

It concluded that the allegations in the FIR, if taken at face value, disclosed a preliminary case, and therefore the proceedings could not be quashed at this stage.