Court rules consensual relationship and lack of grave suspicion sufficient for discharge; revisional interference deemed unnecessary.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the discharge of a police constable accused of rape under the guise of a false promise of marriage. The decision, delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee on February 17, 2026, emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between consensual relationships and those where consent is vitiated by misrepresentation.
The case involved a complaint by the prosecutrix, who alleged that the accused, a distant relative and a Delhi Police constable, had coerced her into a physical relationship by falsely promising marriage. The prosecutrix claimed that this promise led her to engage in intimacy with the accused, which she later deemed non-consensual upon his refusal to marry her.
The High Court examined the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident, noting the two-year relationship between the parties, during which the prosecutrix was aware of her actions. The Court observed that there was no evidence of coercion or force, and the prosecutrix's own narrative indicated a voluntary and consensual relationship. Furthermore, the absence of repeated incidents or external injuries supported the conclusion that the prosecutrix had not been misled to a degree that vitiated her consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Banerjee emphasized the legal principle that at the stage of discharge, the Court must not conduct a mini-trial but merely assess whether the evidence raises a "grave suspicion" warranting a trial. The judgment referenced key Supreme Court precedents, including Prafulla Kumar Samal and Amit Kapoor, which underscore the need for clear grounds of suspicion before proceeding to trial.
The prosecutrix's counsel had argued for the application of Section 90 of the IPC, asserting that the promise of marriage constituted a misrepresentation. However, the Court found that the prosecutrix's actions were consistent with a consensual relationship and that the timeline of events did not support her claims of being misled.
The judgment also addressed the scope of revisional jurisdiction, clarifying that interference is warranted only in cases of glaring perversity, illegality, or inherent flaws in the lower court's order. The Court found no such issues in the trial court's decision to discharge the accused, thereby affirming the order.
The decision has been welcomed by legal experts for its nuanced approach to cases involving promises of marriage, highlighting the importance of assessing the evidence in its entirety and respecting the autonomy of individuals in consensual relationships.
Bottom Line:
Promise of marriage - False assurance of marriage leading to physical relationship - If the prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the accused, her consent cannot be vitiated under Section 90 of IPC merely on the ground of a false assurance of marriage.
Statutory provision(s): Section 376 IPC, Section 90 IPC, Section 227 Cr.P.C., Section 228 Cr.P.C., Section 397 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Prosecutrix (X) v. State, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854260
