Prolonged Consensual Relationship Does Not Constitute Rape Under Misconception of Fact Absent Initial Deceitful Intent

The Petitioner sought to quash an F.I.R. and criminal proceedings involving allegations under Section 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC.

The Informant (Opposite Party No. 2) alleged that the Petitioner established a physical relationship with her in 2018 under a false promise of marriage, which continued until 2023.

She claimed the Petitioner blocked her on social media in June 2024 upon becoming engaged to another woman and subsequently threatened her.

The Petitioner contended that the relationship was a long-standing consensual affair between two educated adults (both aged approximately 28) which began in 2015.

He further noted he had solemnized a marriage with another person in November 2023.

Section 482 of the CrPC regarding the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

Distinction between a "false promise of marriage" and a "breach of promise," noting that for consent to be vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the IPC, the promise must be false from its inception.

Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of Maharashtra (2025) and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which established that a prolonged sexual relationship suggests consent was not solely based on a deceitful promise but was a voluntary act between adults.

The Court observed that the parties were involved in a romantic and intimate relationship for nearly six years (2018–2023) without any protest or complaint from the Informant during that period.

It reasoned that such a prolonged duration indicates the relationship was consensual rather than based on force or deceit.

The Court held that for consent to be vitiated, there must be a direct nexus between the false promise and the sexual act, and the promise must have been made in bad faith from the start; here, the facts suggested a failed relationship rather than an initial intent to deceive.

The court noted that the Informant only filed the F.I.R. after the relationship deteriorated and the Petitioner married someone else, characterizing the complaint as an "afterthought".

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the F.I.R. and the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Cuttack Mahila P.S. Case No. 126 of 2024, holding that continuing the prosecution would cause "serious disturbance and prejudice" to the Petitioner’s current matrimonial life and constitute an abuse of process.