Failure to marry after a prolonged relationship does not alone establish rape by false promise.

The informant alleged that petitioner no. 1 had sexual relations with her for about a year on a false promise of marriage and that she became pregnant and underwent abortions.

She further alleged that petitioner nos. 2–5, petitioner no. 1’s family members, persuaded her father to have a pregnancy terminated on an assurance of marriage, but the marriage did not take place and dowry was later demanded.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under Sections 376, 313 and 120-B IPC; the Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioners’ revision.

In the High Court, petitioner no. 1 withdrew his petition with liberty to raise relevant issues at the charge-framing stage; the matter therefore proceeded only as to petitioner nos. 2–5.

Those petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance and revisional orders, contending that there was no specific material against them for rape and disputing the abortion allegation.

1. Whether the proceedings under Section 376 IPC could continue against petitioner nos. 2–5 when the allegations primarily concerned petitioner no. 1 and did not specifically allege their participation in sexual intercourse.

2. Whether the proceedings under Section 120-B IPC could continue against petitioner nos. 2–5 in relation to the alleged rape.

3. Whether the allegation that petitioner nos. 2–5 participated in or facilitated termination of the informant’s pregnancy warranted continuation of proceedings under Section 313 IPC.

The Court considered Sections 376, 313 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Relying on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, it applied the rule that a promise to marry vitiates consent only where it was false from the outset, made in bad faith without an intention to honour it, and directly induced the woman’s decision to engage in sexual relations.

It also relied on Ansaar Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 886, for the principle that the subsequent failure of a relationship between consenting adults, by itself, does not establish rape.

In exercising Section 482 jurisdiction, the Court declined to undertake a detailed assessment of disputed evidence concerning the alleged abortion.

The Court found no specific material that petitioner nos. 2–5 had committed or participated in the alleged sexual intercourse, and held that the prosecution materials did not establish the necessary ingredients of rape against them.

It further held that the conspiracy allegation relating to rape could not survive against these petitioners once the principal allegation under Section 376 was not made out against them.

The alleged participation in or facilitation of the abortion was distinct from the rape allegation.

Because its factual veracity required examination at trial, the Court considered it inappropriate to resolve that dispute under Section 482 CrPC.

Petitioner no. 1’s petition had separately been dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to raise relevant issues at the charge-framing stage, if charges had not already been framed.