Consensual Sexual Relationship Over Extended Period Between Adults Does Not Constitute Rape Under Section 375 IPC

The Petitioner sought the quashing of an order of cognizance dated 05.09.2023 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, arising from Mahila P.S. Case No. 33 of 2021

The Informant (a 30-year-old woman) alleged that the Petitioner raped her after claiming to be a government staff member, filmed the act, and later forcibly married her on 09.12.2019

She further alleged that he obtained her signature on stamp papers and, along with family members, subjected her to physical assault and financial extortion

The Informant contended that the Petitioner exploited her physically and economically

1. Whether a long-term physical relationship involving a person of mature age can be categorized as a criminal offense under Section 375 IPC if it originated from a promise of marriage or an alleged non-consensual act followed by cohabitation

2. Whether the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner are liable to be quashed based on the consensual nature of the relationship

The Court primarily applied the distinction between a "breach of promise" and a "false promise" of marriage as a misconception of fact under Sections 90 and 375 of the IPC

The Court relied on the precedents established in Sonu alias Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 18 SCC 517 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608

For consent to be vitiated by a misconception of fact, the promise of marriage must have been false from its inception, intended solely to deceive the woman into sexual relations

The Court observed that the Informant was a mature lady of 30 years who appeared to have entered into a consensual relationship with the Petitioner

While noting that the relationship might be "illicit," the Court reasoned it could not be termed "illegal" or criminal in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence

The Court analyzed the principles from Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, noting that there was no adequate evidence to show that the Petitioner had a "bad faith" intention or a false promise from the very beginning to vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC

The court determined that the allegations, when viewed against the timeline of cohabitation and the maturity of the parties, did not sustain the criminal charges for the alleged offenses

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of cognizance dated 05.09.2023 for offenses under Sections 323, 326, 498, 504, and 379/34 IPC insofar as it concerned the Petitioner