Consensual live-in sex, without material of coercion or a deceptive marriage promise, does not constitute rape.

The complainant alleged that she and the petitioner had been in a relationship since 2017–2018, lived together as husband and wife, and had a sexual relationship during which she became pregnant several times.

She alleged that the petitioner later distanced himself from her and did not marry her.

Following investigation into an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 406 IPC, the police filed a charge sheet.

The Sessions Court framed a charge under Section 376 IPC on 18 December 2021.

The petitioner sought, under Section 482 CrPC, to quash the Sessions Case and the charge-framing order.

1. Whether the statements and other materials collected during investigation disclosed the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC so as to justify a charge under Section 376 IPC.

2. Whether the charge-framing order and the pending Sessions Case should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 375 IPC defines rape by reference to specified acts of penetration and circumstances including absence of consent, consent obtained through fear or specified misconception, and other statutory conditions; Explanation 2 defines consent as an unequivocal voluntary agreement to participate in the specific sexual act.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of court.

Relying on Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 91, the Court noted the distinction between rape and consensual sex, including that a consensual relationship does not constitute rape merely because a promise of marriage is not fulfilled, absent a false promise made with the requisite intent.

The Court examined the FIR, the complainant’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and the witness statements.

It found that these materials described a continuing relationship, cohabitation as husband and wife, and consensual sexual relations, but did not indicate that the complainant’s participation was against her will, without consent, induced by fear, or based on a false promise of marriage made with deceptive intent from the outset.

The materials therefore did not disclose the ingredients of rape under Section 375 IPC, and the charge under Section 376 IPC could not stand.

The Court quashed Sessions Case No. 218/2021, the order dated 18 December 2021 framing the Section 376 IPC charge, and the subsequent orders in the case.

The petition was disposed of.