Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was hearing a petition by a man seeking dismissal of a chargesheet and criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered in under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The court held that the case stemmed from a consensual relationship between two adults that later fell apart.
“Once, a promise was made in good faith and, subsequently, after a change of circumstances when the relationship between the parties went wrong for various other reasons, such breach of promise would not be treated as a misconception for consent to establish a physical relationship. When a woman of competent age, having sufficient understanding of the physical activities in which she is involved based on a promise of marriage, understands the risks associated with such a physical relationship, as there is a significant difference between marriage and a mere promise of marriage,” the court said on June 25.
The case arose from an FIR lodged on March 23, 2024, by a 24-year-old woman who alleged that she had entered into a physical relationship with the accused after he a promise of marriage was made to her. She claimed they first had sexual relations in a hotel on May 7, 2022, after which he repeatedly established physical relations with her, allegedly recorded an obscene video, blackmailed her, and later refused to marry her. She also alleged that she became pregnant and underwent an abortion with the accused’s assistance.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court relied upon a series of recent Supreme Court judgments dealing with allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage. (File image)
Medical evidence, investigation
The court also noted that the woman’s medical examination conducted on April 1, 2024, did not reveal any external or internal injuries. During the investigation, police also failed to recover the alleged obscene video. Charges under Sections 313 (causing miscarriage without a woman’s consent) and 109 (abetment) of the IPC were dropped, while a chargesheet was filed only under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The magistrate subsequently took cognisance on July 29, 2024.
False promise vs breach of promise
The high court relied upon a series of recent Supreme Court judgments dealing with allegations of rape on the false promise of marriage. It reiterated that criminal liability arises only where the promise to marry was false from the very beginning and was made solely to obtain consent for sexual relations.
If the promise was genuine when made but could not be fulfilled because circumstances later changed, the relationship cannot automatically be converted into a rape case, the court held. The judgment distinguished between a “false promise” and a “mere breach of promise”, observing that every failed relationship cannot attract criminal prosecution.
Story continues below this ad
Supreme Court precedents discussed
The judgment referred to several recent Supreme Court decisions, including Mahesh Damu Khare, Prashant vs State (NCT of Delhi), Samadhan vs State of Maharashtra, Rajnish Singh @ Soni, Pramod Kumar Navratna, Nitin B. Nikhare, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, Deepak Gulati, Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar, Maheshwar Tigga, Shiv Shanker and others, all of which emphasised that consensual relationships between adults cannot later be criminalised merely because the relationship failed or marriage did not take place.
Relationship continued for nearly two years
- The high court noted that the prosecutrix admitted she remained in the relationship for nearly two years before filing the FIR and did not complain immediately after the first alleged incident.
- The court observed that there was no allegation that the accused had forcibly taken her to the hotel or compelled her to accompany him. Nor was there any material suggesting deception at the inception of the relationship.
- Instead, the court found that the woman had voluntarily continued the relationship until she learned that the man was planning to marry someone else. “The only logical inference that emerges is that the victim, on her own volition, visited and met the applicant on each occasion,” the court said.
- “Additionally, the long gap of about 2 years between the first alleged act of sexual intercourse, and continued relations for a period of two years till the filing of the FIR, convinces this Court that it was a clear case of love affair turned sour,” it added.
Proceedings dismissed
The high court concluded that there was no material indicating that the accused had never intended to marry the woman from the outset or that the promise itself was fraudulent.
Instead, the court found that the parties had remained in a consensual relationship for almost two years and that the FIR was lodged only after the relationship broke down. Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law, the high court quashed the chargesheet dated May 12, 2024, the cognisance order dated July 29, 2024, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before an additional chief judicial magistrate.
Significance
The ruling reinforces the growing judicial distinction between a false promise of marriage made with fraudulent intent from the outset and a genuine promise that later remains unfulfilled. It also adds to a series of recent Supreme Court and high court decisions cautioning against treating every failed romantic relationship between consenting adults as a criminal offence of rape.