A long consensual relationship followed by refusal to marry does not constitute rape on a false promise of marriage.

The respondent no. 2, a divorced woman, alleged that she met the applicant through the matrimonial website Shaadi.com in May 2021. According to the FIR, the applicant assured her of marriage and, on that pretext, established physical relations with her from July 2021 onwards at different hotels. She alleged that the applicant subsequently avoided marriage, and on 6 June 2023 refused to marry her, abused her, and threatened her with dire consequences.

The FIR was lodged on 1 August 2023 under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station Vikas Nagar, Dehradun.

After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet dated 15 September 2023, and the Magistrate took cognizance and issued the impugned summoning order.

The applicant invoked Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning order and the entire criminal proceedings, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was lodged after he declined to marry the complainant.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disclosed the ingredients of rape under Section 376 IPC, or whether the sexual relationship was consensual and based only on a subsequent breach of promise to marry?

2. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Section 482 Cr.P.C., which permits the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, along with Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC.

It relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, which distinguishes a promise to marry that was false from its inception from a subsequent breach of a genuine promise; a mere failure to marry does not by itself vitiate consent.

Relying on Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court recognised that a consensual relationship continuing for a substantial period, followed by refusal to marry, does not ordinarily constitute rape merely because the relationship was accompanied by an assurance of marriage.

The Court further relied on Jothiragawan v. State, concerning repeated consensual sexual relations despite alleged coercion.

Ravish Singh Rana v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that a prolonged relationship or live-in arrangement between consenting adults may indicate voluntary consent and cannot automatically be characterised as intercourse induced by a false promise of marriage.

The Court examined the FIR and the complainant’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and found that the parties had remained in a relationship from July 2021 to June 2023, for nearly two years.

Although the complainant alleged that the relationship was consensual only because of the applicant’s promise to marry, the Court held that the prolonged nature of the relationship and the complainant’s repeated accompaniment of the applicant to hotels supported the conclusion that the relationship was consensual rather than induced by a misconception of fact.

Applying the principles in Sonu, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Jothiragawan and Ravish Singh Rana, the Court concluded that the materials suggested a subsequent refusal to marry, amounting at most to a breach of promise, and not a promise false from the beginning.

Since the essential ingredients of rape were not made out on the allegations themselves, continuation of the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the charge-sheet dated 15 September 2023, the impugned summoning order, and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 6977 of 2023 arising out of Crime No. 284 of 2023 under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

The criminal miscellaneous application was accordingly allowed.