Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed, “The 2nd respondent (complainant) did not resist the overtures of the 1 st petitioner (accused) and, in fact succumbed to them. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance

The Madras High Court on Monday ruled that an offence of rape under Section 376 IPC on the pretext of false promise to marry is not made out when the complainant willingly engages in the sexual act knowing that the intended marriage may not take place at all on account of her own marital status. The Court was adjudicating upon a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking the quashing of the FIR instituted against the accused.

Also Read – Delay In Filling Up Vacancies: ‘Maharashtra Human Rights Commission Has Become A Defunct Body’- Bombay High Court
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar observed,

“The 2nd respondent (complainant) did not resist the overtures of the 1 st petitioner (accused) and, in fact succumbed to them. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent. She must have known the consequences of the act, particularly when she was conscious of the fact that their marriage may not take place at all on account of her marital status and continued to have sexual relationship on several occasions. In this case, the sexual relationship between them continued for five years which cannot be termed as rape. The facts of the case and the acknowledgment of the 2 nd respondent about the physical relationship between them would not constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC”,