‘Held captive on marriage pretext’: Gauhati High Court refuses relief to rape accused

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.

‘Confinement, sexual assault’

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.

Justice Mitali Thakuria observed that the case was at a premature stage.

She further alleged that she became pregnant from the relationship and the petitioner later threatened and abused her when she insisted on marriage. Based on her complaint, an FIR was registered. Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against the man, showing him as an absconder. The chief judicial magistrate later took cognisance of the offences.

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.

Intent behind marriage promise unclear: HC

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.