Nagpur: The promise of a man to marry a woman before building a long sexual relations and then failing to fulfill it cannot be called the wrong, the Nagpur bench from the Bombay High Court has been held.
While providing anticipatory guarantee to Gulab Meshram, Justice Surendra Tavade showed that there was no accusation on the fir, when he promised to marry her, it was done in bad faith and with the intention to cheat him.
“The fact was established from their old physical intimacy.
The failure of the applicant to fulfill his promise to get married cannot be interpreted means it’s wrong.
As soon as his parents reject the marriage proposal, FIR is submitted by the woman,” HC said.
The woman has filed a complaint of rape against Yavatmal-based men, who had previously promised to marry her and establish sexual relations for three years before saying no.
Based on his complaint, the Patan police station posted it under Section 376, 376 (2) (N) and 417 IPC.
Citing fir contents, the judge said it seems that the complainant and the applicant had a physical relationship with their agreement.
“There may be a wedding promise given by the applicant, but seeing a long physical relationship standing, it does not mean that it is based on a fake wedding appointment.
There are ingredients in the note to withstand the approval given to him for physical contacts with him not only based on appointments for Married, but they have a long-term consensual relationship, “Judge added.
After being ordered by the police, the 26-year-old applicant moved the justice to pre-capture guarantees through the advice of Raheel Mirza.
Mirza argues that sexual relations that have been established for a long time begins by love deny the theory of misunderstanding of the facts since the start of the relationship in such circumstances cannot be based on one of the promises to get married.
“The woman alleged that the applicant had proposed in 2016 and later, they had sexual relations from 2018 to 2021 continuously.
He used to live in his place of origin and had a regular coois.
Their relationship is known by the parents of the complainant.
Even though he has been suspected Providing a promise to marry her, there was no material in the record to determine that the promise was wrong from the start, “said Justice Tavade.
Before allowing the applicant’s application for guarantees, he was directed to provide PR Bonds of Rs 15,000 and to attend the Patan Police Office every day up to three weeks between 10 am and during the day.
Failure to get married after having sex is not a false promise, high court bomb rules
