Prolonged Consensual Relationship Negates Premise of Misconception of Fact in Absence of Deceitful Intent at Inception.

The petitioner, a Police Sub-Inspector, was accused by the informant (his sister-in-law's sister) of establishing a physical relationship under the false promise of marriage.

The informant alleged the petitioner took advantage of her husband’s incarceration to reside with her, resulting in the birth of a child in 2021.

While the informant initially denied the relationship and child during divorce proceedings against her husband (MTS Case No. 24 of 2021), she later filed a criminal complaint (Khunti Mahila P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025) alleging the petitioner refused to marry her after fresh matrimonial proceedings were initiated.

The police filed a charge sheet, and the Trial Court took cognizance and framed charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

The court primarily applied Section 376(2)(n) (rape on the same woman repeatedly) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. (2025) and Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra (2024), which establish that if a woman knowingly maintains a physical relationship for a prolonged period, it cannot be concluded that consent was obtained solely through a false promise to marry.

Further, it applied the principle from Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), requiring evidence that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the marriage promise at the initial stage.

Procedurally, the court exercised its inherent power under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) to prevent abuse of the legal process.

The court observed that the physical relationship was continuous for at least five years and the FIR was lodged more than four years after the child's birth.

Applying the Rajnish Singh precedent, the court found that such a prolonged association negates the element of force or deceit as a primary basis for consent.

The court noted a lack of material evidence to suggest that the petitioner had a "mala fide" intention or "no intention whatsoever" to marry the informant at the inception of the relationship.

Furthermore, the court found no allegations satisfying the ingredients of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

Consequently, the court reasoned that even if the allegations were accepted as true, the legal requirements for the charged offences were not satisfied.

The court held that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the entire criminal proceeding, including the cognizance order dated 09.09.2025 and the framing of charges order dated 15.04.2026.