Consensual physical relationship between adults on promise of marriage does not constitute rape.

The Petitioner sought to quash F.I.R. No. 756/2025 (Choudwar P.S.) and the underlying Buguda P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024.

The Informant (Opposite Party No. 4) alleged that she maintained a physical relationship with the Petitioner for over three years based on a promise of marriage, which the Petitioner eventually declined to honor.

The Petitioner contended that the relationship was consensual between two adults and that the Informant was a married woman, a fact allegedly ignored by the investigating authorities.

The Petitioner argued the dispute was matrimonial/civil in nature rather than criminal.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent an abuse of the process of law.

2. Whether the consent for sexual intimacy was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" arising from a promise to marry.

The court applied Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any court.

It relied on the settled principle that quashing is an exceptional remedy to be used sparingly when no offence is disclosed on the face of the record.

Regarding sexual consent, the court applied the "misconception of fact" doctrine, which requires a dual satisfaction: first, that the promise of marriage was false at its inception (made in bad faith); and second, that such promise had a direct and immediate nexus to the decision to engage in the relationship.

The court observed that the High Court cannot conduct a meticulous inquiry into the reliability of evidence at this stage.

However, upon examining the face value of the allegations, the court found the relationship to be prima facie consensual between two adults capable of understanding consequences.

The court reasoned that a breakdown of a romantic association due to subsequent misunderstandings and estrangement does not satisfy the legal requirements of a "false promise" made in bad faith from the start.

Because the essential ingredients to vitiate consent were absent, the court determined that continuing the prosecution for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the I.T. Act would constitute an abuse of the legal process.

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed F.I.R. No. 756/2025 and Buguda P.S. Case No. 109 of 2024, along with all consequential proceedings.

Any previously granted interim orders were vacated.