Consensual relationship cannot be converted into rape prosecution upon breach of promise to marry without prior dishonest intent.

The applicant sought to quash a charge sheet and summoning order related to Criminal Case No. 2456 of 2014.

Respondent No. 2 (the complainant) alleged that the applicant developed a friendly relationship with her in 2010 and promised marriage.

She alleged that on October 10, 2010, the applicant intoxicated her and committed rape, and continued physical relations on the pretext of marriage until June 2013.

Following the applicant's refusal to marry, an FIR was lodged on September 22, 2013.

The applicant challenged the proceedings, citing a lack of evidence, mechanical summoning by the Magistrate, and the consensual nature of the long-term relationship.

Whether the summoning order was passed without due application of judicial mind and whether the prosecution of the applicant for rape is sustainable given the consensual nature of the long-term relationship.

Whether a breach of promise to marry equates to a "misconception of fact" under the Indian Penal Code sufficient to attract Section 376 IPC.

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code regarding rape and the concept of "misconception of fact".

Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra & another (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1230), which established that a consensual relationship that later turns sour does not constitute a ground for criminal prosecution under Section 376 IPC.

The principle that a breach of promise to marry is not ipso facto a "false promise" unless a dishonest intention existed at the inception of the relationship.

The Court observed that the relationship was consensual and spanned over three years (2010–2013), suggesting a lack of prima facie material to prove the applicant had a dishonest intention from the beginning.

The Court noted significant improvements and contradictions in the prosecution's story, specifically that the alleged 2010 hotel rape was not mentioned in the FIR, which instead listed the incident date as 2013.

Investigation was found to be deficient: no independent witnesses, hotel records, CCTV footage, or Call Detail Records (CDRs) were collected to corroborate the allegations.

Medical evidence was inconclusive, with no injuries found and no definite opinion given regarding sexual assault.

Consequently, following Amol Bhagwan Nehul, the Court reasoned that continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of law as the relationship was clearly consensual.

The Court allowed the application and quashed the charge sheet dated April 30, 2014, the summoning order dated September 30, 2014, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2456 of 2014.