Consensual sexual relationship between adults for a prolonged period does not constitute rape upon failure to marry.

In brief

The question

1. Whether consensual sexual relations maintained between two adults over a prolonged period under a promise of marriage constitutes "rape" under Section 376 IPC when the marriage does not fructify

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.

It also directed

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of cognizance dated 31.08.2022 passed by the S.D.J.M., Jehanabad, in its entirety regarding the petitioner

01Facts

The petitioner, a 36-year-old teacher, sought the quashing of an order of cognizance dated 31.08.2022 for offences under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

p. 1

The complainant, a 30-year-old woman, alleged that she entered into a physical relationship with the petitioner on the assurance of marriage, but he later refused to marry her

p. 2 · ¶ 3

The record indicated the parties were in a consensual relationship for approximately three years before the FIR was lodged on 06.07.2022

p. 2 · ¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether consensual sexual relations maintained between two adults over a prolonged period under a promise of marriage constitutes "rape" under Section 376 IPC when the marriage does not fructify

p. 4 · ¶ 8-9

ii.2. Whether the refusal to marry after a consensual relationship attracts the ingredients of "cheating" under Section 420 IPC or "dowry demand" under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the absence of specific evidence

pp. 5-6 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Section 375 of the IPC regarding consent and Section 90 regarding "misconception of fact"

p. 3 · ¶ 7

It relied on the precedent set in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), which distinguished between a "false promise" (given in bad faith at the outset) and a "breach of promise"

p. 3 · ¶ 7

The court also applied the principle from Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), holding that a consensual relationship's failure to culminate in marriage cannot be criminalized

p. 5 · ¶ 9

Regarding the other charges, Sections 415/420 IPC (Cheating) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were applied, requiring proof of dishonest inducement and actual dowry demands, respectively

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 375 Section 376 Section 420 Section 90

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 164

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 Section 4

04Reasoning

The Court analyzed the duration of the relationship—three years—and the age of the informant (30 years), concluding she was a consenting adult capable of independent decisions

pp. 4-5 · ¶ 9

Applying the Pramod Suryabhan Pawar test, the Court found no evidence that the petitioner had a "bad faith" intention from the very beginning or that the sole reason for sexual indulgence was the promise of marriage

p. 4 · ¶ 8

It reasoned that a mere breakdown of a cordial, long-standing relationship between two adults does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 376 IPC

p. 5 · ¶ 9

Regarding Section 420, the Court noted the FIR lacked any allegation of dishonest inducement leading to delivery of property

p. 5 · ¶ 10

Finally, the Section 4 DPA charge was found to be without any factual foundation, as the FIR was silent on any demand for dowry

p. 6 · ¶ 10

05Holding

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process.

p. 6 · ¶ 11-12

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of cognizance dated 31.08.2022 passed by the S.D.J.M., Jehanabad, in its entirety regarding the petitioner

p. 6 · ¶ 11-12

LawLens.Patna High Court

Original Court PDF