Absence of Fraudulent Intent Inception and Long-Term Consensual Relationship Negate Rape Charges on Pretext of Marriage.

The applicant sought to quash an FIR (Crime No. 332/2025) and subsequent charge-sheet filed under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant and the victim (Respondent No. 2) were in a romantic relationship from 2019 to 2024.

The victim alleged that in October 2019, the applicant lured her with a promise of marriage and established physical relations.

The relationship continued for several years until the applicant proposed to marry another woman in November 2024.

The applicant argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the FIR was a malicious reaction to the breakdown of the relationship, lodged after an unexplained six-year delay.

The trial had progressed to the stage of cognizance before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ambikapur.

Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclose the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC or merely illustrate a failed consensual relationship.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to quash the criminal proceedings on the grounds of delay and lack of prima facie evidence.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court.

It relied on the principles established in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which dictate that the power to quash must be used sparingly and only in the "rarest of rare cases".

The Court also cited State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M. Maridoss, affirming that at the quashing stage, the High Court cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or evaluate the reliability of allegations but must only determine if the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence.

The Court examined the contents of the FIR, noting specific allegations that the applicant pressured the victim and used the pretext of a marriage promise to establish physical relations beginning in 2019.

While the applicant argued that the long-term voluntary association and WhatsApp chats proved consent, the Court held that it could not inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at this preliminary stage.

The Court reasoned that the primary duty under Section 528 BNSS is to verify if the ingredients of the offence are present in the text of the complaint.

Since the victim explicitly alleged "false pretext of marriage" and physical exploitation, the Court found that the legal threshold for a cognizable offence was met.

It held that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and does not fall within the parameters for interference under inherent jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed, and the criminal proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 138/2025 were allowed to continue.