Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 23

Theme: Criminal law + Legal Current Affairs

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a married woman cannot claim to have been raped based on a false promise of marriage, especially when both parties involved are married. The court, led by Justice Manish Pitale, made this observation while granting anticipatory bail to Vishal Nagnath Shinde, who was accused of rape and criminal intimidation by a married woman. The woman alleged that Shinde had promised to marry her and later assaulted her, threatening to circulate videos of the incident.

The court found that the complainant, being married, was fully aware that she could not marry the accused. It also noted that Shinde, who is also married, could not have made a credible promise of marriage. Therefore, the theory of a “false promise of marriage” was considered misplaced in this context.

Shinde’s defense argued that he had fully cooperated with the investigation, including surrendering his mobile phone for examination. They further questioned the credibility of the woman’s claims, given their respective marital statuses. Although the State’s counsel claimed that Shinde had not fully complied with the investigation, the court found no evidence that he had circulated any incriminating videos of the woman.

Given these findings, the High Court granted Shinde anticipatory bail with certain conditions, stating that there was no substantial reason to prolong the criminal proceedings. The court’s decision also underscored that the case was an example of potential misuse of criminal processes, as continuing the proceedings would likely result in a travesty of justice. Consequently, the court set aside a previous Bombay High Court order that upheld the criminal proceedings and quashed both the complaint and chargesheet filed in 2013.

Question 1:

A married woman files a complaint against a married man, alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage. The man denies making any such promise, arguing that since they were both already married, no valid promise of marriage could have been made. What is the most likely ruling based on the High Court’s observations?

a) The court would dismiss the case, as both parties were married and a promise of marriage could not be valid.
b) The court would uphold the charges because a promise of marriage, even if impossible, constitutes fraud.
c) The court would order an investigation to determine if the man could have promised marriage.
d) The court would focus on other allegations like intimidation but reject the false promise of marriage.

Question 2:

In a case where both the complainant and the accused are married, the woman claims she was sexually assaulted based on a false promise of marriage. However, she knew she could not legally marry the accused. Based on the High Court’s stance, what could be the reasoning for rejecting the rape charge?

a) The woman should have pursued a divorce first.
b) Since both parties were married, the claim of a false promise of marriage was inherently implausible.
c) The accused has no legal obligation to marry under these circumstances.
d) A married person cannot file a complaint for rape under any circumstances.

Question 3:

Shinde, the accused in this case, argued that he had cooperated fully with the investigation, including surrendering his phone, and that no evidence existed of him circulating videos as alleged by the complainant. The court granted him anticipatory bail despite objections from the State. What could be a key reason for granting bail?

a) The court did not consider the allegations serious enough to continue proceedings.
b) The complainant’s marital status undermined her claims of a false promise of marriage.
c) The accused’s cooperation and the lack of evidence supporting the serious allegations made bail appropriate.
d) The State failed to prove that a crime had been committed.

Question 4:

If a court finds that criminal proceedings would lead to a “travesty of justice”, what does this imply about the case?

a) The case is based on fabricated or exaggerated claims and continuing it would cause unfair harm to the accused.
b) The case should proceed as usual but with less scrutiny.
c) The accused will automatically be found innocent.
d) The case must go to trial without delay to resolve the issue.

Question 5:

The High Court in this case quashed the complaint and chargesheet from 2013, noting potential misuse of the legal process. Which of the following would most likely be a reason for quashing the complaint?

a) The accused did not deny the sexual relationship.
b) The accusations were deemed implausible given the marital status of both parties, and no evidence supported the complainant’s more serious allegations.
c) The complainant withdrew her complaint after reaching a settlement.
d) The court found the accused had already been punished enough.

Answers:

1. a) The court would dismiss the case, as both parties were married and a promise of marriage could not be valid.
2. b) Since both parties were married, the claim of a false promise of marriage was inherently implausible.
3. c) The accused’s cooperation and the lack of evidence supporting the serious allegations made bail appropriate.
4. a) The case is based on fabricated or exaggerated claims and continuing it would cause unfair harm to the accused.
5. b) The accusations were deemed implausible given the marital status of both parties, and no evidence supported the complainant’s more serious allegations.