False Promise of Marriage can send you to Jail?

Introduction

In the modern social media crazed world, everything is faster including food, delivery, groceries and even relationships. Unfortunately, due to the advent of this speed there has been an equally supersonic rise in the litigations that are accompanying modern relationships. This article seeks to examine the dangers and pitfalls that can occur when relationships go sour and the legal implications of a false promise to marriage that can lead to severe repercussions under the rigors of the law.

Supreme Court on Section IPC 376

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v State of Maharashtra & Ors 2019 (9) SCC 08 opined at para 37 that “The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions would be that if it is established and proved that from the inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance by the accused that he would marry her, such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 of the IPC and, in such a case, such a consent would not excuse the offender and such an offender can be said to have committed the rape as defined under Sections 375 of the IPC and can be convicted for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

Thus, from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement it can be seen that if the Complainant alleges that she was induced into engaging in sexual intercourse under the false promise of a marriage and that false promise was the reason for her providing consent for sexual intercourse the perpetrator can be booked under section 376 of the IPC r/w Section 90 of the Indian Penal code for the heinous offence of rape due to interpretation of the law by the Hon’ble Court.

It is pertinent to note that this interpretation of the law has now found statutory recognition under the new criminal laws sought to be enforced in the country as even Section 69 of the Bharitya Nyaya Sanhita states that “whoever, by deceitful means or making by promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine”

What Does the new criminal law say?

The current section in the New Criminal Laws makes it patently clear and unambiguous that the aforesaid offence has been specifically carved out and is no longer and extension of the law by application of judicial mind but is a clear-cut offence in the eyes of the Law.

Important Judgements on Section 376 IPC in Supreme Court & High Courts

The Hon’ble Supreme Court however, in it’s recent judgment of Naim Ahmed v State (NCT of Delhi) Crim Appeal No. 257 of 2023 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that “ It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC - Difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused - In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceived the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her only with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him or the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfillhis promise.” and thus the Applicant was acquitted and set at liberty by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

The Hon’ble Courts have also taken judicial notice of the fact that there has been a rampant uptick in the number of criminal cases filed on the basis ofthese provisions which has led the Hon’ble Delhi High Court to remark thus in the case of Capt. Simranjit Sambhi v State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (CRL M.C. 2960 of 2021) wherein the Hon’ble High Court chose to quash the FIR and has noted at para 20 that “a private dispute is being aggravated for ulterior purposes and the process of the law is being used as a tool to settle personal scores.”

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has further evolved their rulings to encapsulate that a married woman, however, cannot allege that she was induced into physical relations upon a false promise of marriage as opined by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of S. Rajadurai v State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr. W.P.(CRL) 208/2023 wherein the Hon’ble Court has opined that “Thus, the protection and remedies available under Section 376 of the IPC cannot be extended to a victim who was not legally entitled to marry the person with whom she was in sexual relationship with. A case can be made out under Section 376 of IPC, if the victim can prove that she was induced into a sexual relationship under false pretext of marriage by the other party being legally eligible to enter into a marriage with such person”

Conclusion

Given the evolving landscape of the criminal laws in light of the overhaul done by Parliament with respect to the BNS, BNSS it remains to be seen whether the new penal provisions will open the flood gates for adversarial litigation amongst couples or will the authorities be more discerning in applying the standard of proofs available to criminal complaints of this nature.

Young couples everywhere will have to exercise caution before promising their paramours the sun, moon and the stars as the breaking of this promise could land someone behind bars!