After Woman Learned Partner Was Already Married And Continued Cohabiting, Supreme Court Discharges Him From Rape, Cheating And Bigamy Charges

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the appellant, whom she had met after her divorce, represented himself as a bachelor and married her at a temple in Mysuru in 1996.

They lived together until 2003, and she alleged that she consented to sexual relations believing herself to be his lawful wife.

The appellant later disclosed that he was already married and had two children.

After proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were dismissed, respondent No. 2’s first private complaint alleging offences under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the IPC was dismissed for non-prosecution.

A second complaint led to an FIR and chargesheet.

The appellant’s discharge application was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the High Court dismissed his revision and related petition.

He appealed to the Supreme Court

Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the Sessions Judge to discharge an accused where, after considering the record and hearing the parties, there is insufficient ground to proceed.

Under Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4, and Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, the court may sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case or grave suspicion exists; it must apply its judicial mind but must not conduct a trial or undertake a roving inquiry.

Section 376(2)(n) concerns repeated rape; Section 420 requires cheating that dishonestly induces delivery of property or dealings with a valuable security; Section 493 requires deceit causing a woman to believe she is lawfully married to the man and, on that belief, to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him; and Sections 494–495 concern a void subsequent marriage during the lifetime of a spouse, with Section 495 requiring concealment of the earlier marriage.

The Court held that the parties’ relationship and cohabitation continued for years, including after respondent No. 2 learned of the appellant’s prior marriage.

On the material before it, her claim that she continued to believe she was his lawful wife was untenable; the sexual relationship was consensual and could not be retrospectively treated as rape merely because the relationship ended.

The Court also found no allegation that the appellant’s alleged deceit induced respondent No. 2 to deliver property or deal with a valuable security, as required for Section 420.

The evidence did not prima facie establish the deceit and belief required by Section 493, or a legally valid subsequent marriage and concealment of the earlier marriage required for Sections 494 and 495.

Applying the Section 227 standard, the Court concluded that the alleged offences were not sufficiently probable to warrant a trial.