Consensual Sexual Relationship Based on Breach of Promise to Marry Does Not Constitute Rape or Fraud.

The Petitioner, Mithlesh Kumar, sought the quashing of an order of cognizance dated 05.09.2023 for offences under Sections 323, 326, 498, 504, and 379/34 of the IPC.

The Informant (Opposite Party No. 2), a 30-year-old woman, alleged that the Petitioner misrepresented himself as a government official at her beauty clinic and raped her.

She further alleged that he recorded a video of the act, forcibly married her on 09.12.2019, coerced her into signing stamp papers, and subsequently subjected her to physical assault and financial exploitation for money and jewelry.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences or represent a consensual relationship between adults.

2. Whether the "consent" for sexual relations was vitiated by a "misconception of fact" under Section 90 IPC due to a false promise of marriage.

The Court primarily applied the principles governing "consent" in sexual relationships and the "misconception of fact" under Section 90 of the IPC.

It relied on the precedent set in Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2021) 18 SCC 517 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2019) 9 SCC 608.

These cases establish that for consent to be vitiated, there must be evidence that the promise to marry was "false" from its inception—meaning the maker had no intention of fulfilling it—rather than a mere subsequent breach of promise.

The Court observed that the Informant was a 30-year-old woman who entered into what appeared to be a consensual relationship with the Petitioner.

Although the relationship might be characterized as "illicit," the Court held it could not be termed "illegal" or criminal under the cited precedents.

Following the Pramod Suryabhan Pawar framework, the Court analyzed whether the Petitioner's actions constituted a "false promise" at the initial stage.

The Court found that a breach of promise does not equate to a false promise unless the intent to deceive was present from the beginning.

In this case, the Court determined the relationship was essentially consensual and did not meet the immediate relevance or direct nexus required to prove that consent was obtained through a "misconception of fact".

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, in connection with Mahila P.S. Case No. 33 of 2021 insofar as it related to the Petitioner.