Sheikh Arif vs. State of Maharashtra [January 30, 2024
Background
Sheikh Arif was accused by the complainant (Respondent No. 2) of offences under Sections 376(2) (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as various provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR, registered in 2018, alleged that Arif had repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with the complainant under a false promise of marriage, leading to pregnancy and abortion, and later reneged on his promise by marrying another woman.
Factual Matrix
The complainant and Arif became acquainted in 2011, developed a relationship, and began meeting regularly.
The complainant alleged that Arif had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, initially on the assurance of marriage.
She claimed that in 2013, she became pregnant and underwent an abortion at Arif’s insistence.
Their relationship continued, including an engagement in 2017, but in early 2018, the complainant discovered Arif had become engaged and subsequently married another woman.
Legal Proceedings
Arif challenged the FIR and subsequent charge sheet, contending that the relationship was consensual and that there was a Nikah (marriage) between him and the complainant in 2017, though he could not produce the original Nikahnama. He argued that the allegations did not constitute rape or offences under the SC/ST Act, as the sexual relationship was consensual and not induced by deception.
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur had refused to quash the FIR, but Arif appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and the law regarding consent and false promise of marriage. The Court emphasized that consensual sexual relations between adults do not amount to rape unless the consent was obtained by deception or coercion. The Court found that the complainant was in a long-standing consensual relationship with Arif, and there was insufficient evidence to show that her consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage throughout the relationship.
The Court also noted that the continuation of the relationship, even after the alleged breach of promise, indicated that the complainant was aware of the circumstances and chose to continue the association. Thus, the essential ingredients for the offences under Section 376 IPC and the SC/ST Act were not satisfied.
Order and Directions
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, the charge sheet, and the High Court’s order refusing to do so, holding that no criminal offence was made out against Arif.
The Court directed Arif to deposit ₹5 lakhs with the Sessions Court at Nagpur within six weeks and to file a compliance affidavit in the Supreme Court within seven weeks.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the principle that consensual sexual relationships between adults, without evidence of coercion or deception, do not attract criminal liability for rape. It also underscores the need for courts to carefully scrutinize allegations of “false promise of marriage” and to distinguish between breach of promise and criminal culpability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments