The recent observation by the Bombay High Court emphasizes that the act of reneging on a promise to marry due to parental disagreement cannot be equated with the commission of the offence of rape.

Justice MW Chandwani, presiding over a single-judge bench at the Nagpur High Court, was overseeing the proceedings of an appeal filed by a man aiming to have the rape case against him quashed.

In 2016, the victim met the accused through her sister, subsequently entering into a physical relationship on the premise of the accused's commitment to marriage. . The physical relationship persisted within the rented house of the victim's sister.

Later, the victim uncovered that the accused had become romantically involved with another woman. Confronting the accused, she learned that while he expressed a willingness to marry her, his parents were opposed to the idea.

Undaunted, the victim approached the accused's father, who also rejected the marriage proposal. Consequently, in 2019, she lodged a rape case against the accused. Although the accused sought discharge through an application before the Sessions Court, the request was denied. As a result, he turned to the high court for recourse.

Advocate JM Gandhi, representing the accused, put forth the argument that WhatsApp chats would illustrate the accused's readiness to honor the marriage commitment. He claimed that it was the victim who initially showed reluctance to pursue the marriage.

Additional Public Prosecutor SA Ashirgade countered, asserting that the victim's consent was obtained under a misconception and, therefore, should not be deemed valid. He maintained that the accused had committed the offense in question.

Upon reviewing the WhatsApp chats, the high court observed that initially, the accused was willing to marry the victim. However, it was the victim who declined and conveyed her intention to marry another individual. The bench noted that the complaint was filed by the victim only after the accused became engaged to another girl.

As a result, the bench dismissed the rape case against the man, highlighting that the allegations in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) did not, on the face of it, suggest that the commitment made by the accused was false.