In Mukesh v. State & Anr., Rajasthan HC discharged a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage, holding that where both parties are aware that complainant is in a subsisting marriage, a promise to marry would not vitiate her consent to a physical relationship.

Court observed that since no decree of divorce had been obtained, any alleged promise of marriage was incapable of being legally fulfilled and, therefore, could not by itself constitute a misconception of fact sufficient to attract the offence of rape.

The revision petition challenged the order of Sessions Court, framing charges against the petitioner u/s 450, 420, 376(2)(n), 366 and 323 IPC. According to FIR, complainant had been married for about 13 years and, after being forced to leave her matrimonial home, was residing with her parents. Around 10 months before lodging FIR, she came into contact with the petitioner, a friend of her brother, and alleged that he established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage.

The petitioner contended that complainant was a mature married woman who was fully aware of her subsisting marriage and legal consequences of her actions. He argued that relationship continued voluntarily for over 10 months, demonstrating that it was consensual and allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged.

Examining Section 376(2)(n) IPC, High Court observed that the provision contemplates repeated acts of rape and not a continuing consensual relationship that is subsequently alleged to be non-consensual.

Referring to SC’s decision in Pramod Kumar Navratna v. State of Chhattisgarh, High Court observed that law does not recognise a second marriage during subsistence of a valid first marriage. Therefore, where both parties are conscious of prosecutrix's existing marriage, it would ordinarily be difficult to infer that she was induced into a physical relationship solely because of a promise of marriage.

Court further noted that complainant had voluntarily maintained a physical relationship with the petitioner over a considerable period and FIR was lodged only after the relationship deteriorated.

Holding that the material on record did not disclose sufficient grounds to frame charges u/s 450, 420, 376(2)(n), 366 and 323 IPC, High Court allowed the revision petition, quashed the order framing charges, and discharged the petitioner from all the offences.