The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rajkishore Shrivastava vs. State of MP & Anr. on 2^nd August 2021 observed that by giving the prosecutrix a false assurance that she would be reemployed by the applicant (Rajkishore) in his hospital, the consent of the prosecutrix to involve in sexual act with him cannot be said to be a free consent.

Prosecutrix has lodged an FIR on the allegations that in the month of June 2020 she had started working in the hospital of the applicant on the post of Receptionist. Thereafter, the applicant went to Gwalior and Delhi and came back in the month of July 2020. It is alleged that on the pretext of giving job, the applicant had violated her sexually on multiple occasions and also started pressurizing that the prosecutrix must indulge in sex with other persons. When she rejected, she was terminated. It is alleged that on the pretext of reinstatement, the applicant had sexually violated her on number of occasions till December 2020, however, she was not given the job. When the prosecutrix threatened the applicant that she would inform his wife, then the applicant gave an application against her in his defence. The prosecutrix was also beaten by the applicant and a threat was extended.

The Court observed that:

1. If the consent is given in consequence of any misconception or fear, then it cannot be said to be a free consent.
2. If the prosecutrix did not make any complaint with regard to her sexual violation, then it cannot be said that the prosecutrix had indulged in sexual act voluntarily because she was an employee of the applicant and he was in a position to dominate her wishes.
3. When the services were terminated, it is alleged that the applicant again allured her of giving her job, if she continued to have sexual relationship with the applicant, then it cannot be said that her consent was a free consent.
4. As the consent obtained by making false promise of reemployment and thus, in the light of Section 90 of IPC, it can be said that the said consent was obtained under misconception of fact.
5. The Court dismissed the application.

– Esha Shah, Paralegal