New Delhi: The Bombay high court on Tuesday (January 30) said that breaching a marriage promise due to parental opposition does not amount to rape. The Nagpur bench of the court made these comments while discharging a man from a rape case where he was accused of fraudulently obtaining a woman’s consent.

It added that there was a difference between breaching a promise and not fulfilling a false promise.

The complainant in the case said that she and the accused became physically involved after he promised to her that they would get married.

But the accused engaged himself to another woman, following which the complainant approached the police in 2019, the high court’s order cited her complaint and the subsequent FIR as saying.

It also cited them as saying that the complainant met the accused's parents after learning of his engagement and that “his father refused to agree for the marriage of the applicant [the accused] with the victim [the complainant]”.

The court ruled, citing evidence, that the accused's withdrawal from his commitment to marriage due to his parents' disagreement with their union does not warrant charging him with the offence punishable under Section 375 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The accused had approached the high court for relief after a local sessions court rejected his application to be discharged from the case.

The prosecutor argued that as per the FIR, the accused obtained the complainant's consent “under false promise of marriage and since inception, the applicant [the accused] had no intention to marry the victim [the complainant]”.

He said that since the accused obtained the complainant's consent on false premises, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with rape, would apply.

However, the accused argued that he had offered to marry the complainant but that she was “not interested at all”.

But a bench comprising Justice M.W. Chandwani said, “It also appears from the WhatsApp chats between the applicant and the victim that, initially the applicant was ready to marry the victim, but it is the victim, who denied and informed the applicant that she will marry another boy”.

“It is only when the applicant got engaged with another girl, the victim lodged the complaint.”

Referring to the accused's withdrawal from his commitment, Justice Chandwani also cited two Supreme Court judgements which had said there was a “distinction between the mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise”.

The high court quashed the session court's order rejecting the accused's discharge application and proceeded to discharge him itself.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.