Nainital: In a significant decision, the Uttarakhand High Court held that if a promise of marriage is not fulfilled after a long-term consensual physical relationship, then to prove the crime, it is necessary that the promise of marriage was false from the beginning and merely a pretext to obtain consent. A single bench of Justice Ashish Naithani quashed the rape case and charge sheet filed by the Mussoorie police against the accused, Suraj Bora. The court ruled that continuing the proceedings would constitute harassment for the accused.
What did the High Court say?
A single bench of Justice Ashish Naithani stated in its judgment that “the consent given by an adult woman is not invalid merely because the relationship did not later result in marriage.” A crime under Section 376 is made out only if it is proven that the accused did not intend to marry from the beginning and that the promise was merely a means to achieve physical intimacy. Both parties had been in a relationship for a long time, and repeated consensual intercourse occurred, which indicates mutual consent rather than initial fraud.
What is the Suraj Bora case?
A Mussoorie woman alleged that Suraj Bora had physical relations with her after promising to marry her within 45 days. After an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet on July 22, 2023. The accused filed a petition in the High Court seeking to dismiss the case. The defense argued that both were adults, the relationship was long-standing, and there was no concrete evidence that the promise was fraudulent—it was merely a failed relationship. The state government and the victim’s side objected, but the court dismissed the FIR and proceedings based on the consent and long-term relationship.
