Sexual Intercourse Based on Alleged False Promise of Marriage Constitutes Consensual Relationship if Subsisting After Knowledge of Marital Status

The applicant sought the quashing of a chargesheet and summoning order arising from F.I.R. No. 513 of 2022, registered under Sections 376 (Rape), 313 (Causing miscarriage without woman's consent), and 506 (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The complainant (respondent no. 4), a 28-year-old government employee, alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her starting in 2020 based on a false promise of marriage.

Evidence indicated that the complainant was aware of the applicant’s existing marriage and child by September 2021—having even congratulated him on the birth of his daughter—but she voluntarily continued the relationship and travels thereafter.

The medical report showed no signs of forceful intercourse.

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which grants the High Court inherent powers to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Sections 376, 313, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The legal principle that sexual intercourse based on a "false promise of marriage" is vitiated by fraud only if the promise was the sole reason for consent; however, if a woman voluntarily continues a relationship despite knowing the man’s legal inability to marry (such as being already married), the consent is considered informed and the relationship is deemed consensual.

The court found that the complainant was a "major, educated and consenting woman" who possessed full knowledge of the applicant’s marital status since September 2021.

The court reasoned that her decision to continue a voluntary relationship for a considerable period after discovering his marriage negated the allegation that her consent was obtained through a "false promise of marriage".

The court observed that the relationship arose from a "prolonged emotional association between two adults" and lacked elements of force or coercion.

The court determined that the allegations, even if accepted as true, did not meet the statutory requirements for the offences charged, suggesting the FIR was filed due to personal discord or an ulterior motive to pressure the applicant into a divorce.

The court allowed the application and quashed the chargesheet, summoning order, and all proceedings arising out of F.I.R. No. 513 of 2022. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.