Consensual relationship between adults for long duration cannot be termed rape on false pretext of marriage.

The applicant sought the quashment of FIR Crime No. 129/2025 and the subsequent order of framing charges dated 23.05.2025

The prosecutrix (aged 23) alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her for three years on a false pretext of marriage but later refused to marry her

The applicant contended the relationship was consensual and long-standing, supported by photographs and an affidavit from the prosecutrix stating the dispute was amicably resolved and she no longer wished to pursue the case

1. Whether the prolonged consensual relationship between two adults, followed by a refusal to marry, constitutes an offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to quash proceedings based on a settlement in a matter involving allegations of sexual offences

The court applied Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) regarding inherent powers to prevent abuse of process

The court relied on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Ramgopal v. State of M.P., establishing that the High Court may quash non-compoundable criminal proceedings if the parties have settled and the ends of justice so require.

It applied the principles from Mahesh Damu Khamre v. State of Maharashtra, Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), and Bishwajyothi Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, which hold that a long-term consensual relationship cannot be characterized as a "misconception of fact" or a "false promise of marriage" solely because the relationship turned sour

It also referenced State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal regarding the criteria for quashing an FIR

The Court observed that the relationship spanned three years without any allegation of force or coercion at its inception, noting that the prosecutrix was a major capable of understanding the consequences of her actions

The Court reasoned that a prolonged association indicates voluntary consent rather than an isolated inducement based on a false promise

The Court found that the subsequent refusal to marry does not automatically prove that the initial consent was vitiated by a "misconception of fact"

Since the prosecutrix filed an affidavit confirming an amicable settlement and expressed an unwillingness to testify, the Court determined that the possibility of conviction was remote and continuing the trial would constitute an abuse of process

The Court allowed the application, quashed FIR Crime No. 129/2025 (Police Station Umaria), and set aside the order of framing charges in Sessions Trial (ATR) No. 21/2025, discharging the applicant