A prolonged consensual relationship without fraudulent intent from inception does not constitute rape on promise of marriage.

The petitioner and the informant, both adults, met at a marriage ceremony in 2016, exchanged contact details, and subsequently developed a relationship.

The informant alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage and continued to sexually exploit her for over seven years, including during a stay at a hotel in Ranchi on 21 December 2022.

On the basis of the informant’s written complaint, Mahila (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023 was registered.

After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih took cognizance on 16 August 2024 of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with G.R. No. 1945 of 2024.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the FIR, criminal proceedings, and cognizance order.

Whether the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, disclosed rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, or merely a consensual physical relationship between two adults?

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings, FIR, and cognizance order amounted to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to prevent abuse of the process of law.

It considered Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which concerns repeated rape, and applied the principle that a promise to marry vitiates consent only where the promise was false from its inception and was made without any intention of being honoured.

Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court distinguished a false promise from a subsequent breach of promise: a false promise requires proof that the maker had no intention to fulfil it when it was made.

The Court also relied on Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra & Another, (2024) 11 SCC 398, holding that a prolonged physical relationship without protest or insistence for marriage is indicative of consensual relations rather than consent obtained under a misconception of fact.

The Court found no specific allegation that the petitioner lacked the intention to marry the informant at the time he made the promise or established the physical relationship.

The relationship had continued for more than seven years, while the informant was a major throughout, and the FIR was ultimately lodged after the petitioner and his family allegedly refused to proceed with the marriage.

Applying the distinction between an initially false promise and a later failure to marry, the Court held that the allegations did not demonstrate that the petitioner’s promise was deceitful from its inception.

The duration and circumstances of the relationship supported the inference of consensual physical relations between adults, and the allegations were therefore insufficient to constitute the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

It held that the allegations, even if taken as true, did not constitute rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding, including Mahila (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023, the FIR, and the cognizance order dated 16 August 2024 in G.R. No. 1945 of 2024, qua the petitioner.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed.