Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sushil Kumar Palo, J. dismissed a petition after observing the factual and legal aspects, while referring to the essence of Sections 90 and 375 IPC.
The petitioner had been in contact with the prosecutrix through the social media platform “Facebook” since 2013, and eventually, the petitioner asked her to marry him. Rajeev Sharma, the petitioner, had after the fixation of marriage asked the prosecutrix for a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage. Once the marriage was fixed and physical relationship established between the two, he fled away right before the marriage was to take place. The complainant after a few months received a call from Rajeev Sharma asking her to come to Delhi and get married there.
On recording the above-stated facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the only want of the petitioner was to satisfy his lust which constitutes rape in this case, as the petitioner had promised marriage to the complainant but did not fulfill it. The Court, further taking an instance from the case State of U.P. v. Naushad, (2013) 16 SCC 651 observed that the consent in the present case was not “voluntary”, it was under the misconception of fact which certainly amounts to “rape”. The Court also concluded that the petitioner invaded the prosecutrix’s person by indulging in sexual intercourse in order to appease his lust. [Rajeev Sharma v. State of M.P.,2018 SCC OnLine MP 355, dated 27.04.2018]
