Failed Engagement Doesn't Make 'Consensual Relationship' Rape On False Promise To Marry: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a consensual physical relationship between adults cannot be construed as rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage.

The Court quashed an FIR lodged against a man for allegedly committing rape, noting that he had entered into a consensual relationship with his fiancée, wherein after the roka ceremony the marriage could not take place due to differences between the two sides.

Justice Kirti Singh explained, "for attracting the offence of rape on the ground that consent was obtained on a false pretext of marriage, it must be established that the sexual relationship between the parties had been induced by a false promise of marriage from the very inception, and that the accused never had any intention of marrying the complainant."

The Court added that, similarly, for the mere reason that the relationship between a consenting couple could not culminate into marriage, cannot be made the basis of instituting criminal proceedings against a person.

It clarified that the Courts must, in each such case, carefully scrutinize whether the accused had the intention to actually marry the victim, or had made the false promise only with the malafide to satisfy his desire.

The Court was hearing a plea to quash FIR lodges under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

As per the complaint, the woman and the man became friends and later got engaged. During the courtship period, they entered into a consensual relationship. The man and his family allegedly demanded an expensive wedding and a SUV. Later, the petitioner informed her that his family was against their union, and he called off the wedding.

After hearing the submissions, the Court referred to Apex Court's decision in Amol Bhagwal Nehul versus State of Maharrashtra and another wherein it quashed a rape case against a 25-year old student, accused of building sexual relationship with a woman on the pretext of false promise of marriage, stating that the relationship was purely consensual.

Reliance was also placed on Jothiragawan versus State REP. By the Inspector of the Police and another in which Supreme Court reiterated that a breach of a promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of consent.

In the present case, the Court noted that admitted position was that the parties were in a long standing consensual relationship, and talks of marriage between their families also took place, subsequent to which even a roka ceremony was performed.

The date of marriage between the parties was also fixed for November 2024. However, the same could not fructify due to irreconcilable differences that cropped up between the two sides.

Justice Singh highlighted that the complainant woman failed to bring any evidence, to prove that the relation between the two was not consensual or that that there was any intention of the petitioner to deceive her into making physical relations with him on the false pretext of marriage.

"It is clear from the judicial record that the relationship between the petitioner and the (complainant), both well educated and mature adults, was consensual from its very inception," it added.

The Court said even if the case of respondent is accepted, it does not appear that the promise to marry made by the petitioner was in bad faith.

"In fact, the parties were all set to get married, which unfortunately could not take place, leading to the relations between the parties and their families turning bitter, and the subsequent registration of the instant FIR," it added.

The bench opined that the present case is a classic example when criminal colour is given to a situation where a consensual relationship does not turn out in the manner desired by one party, which cannot be permitted to continue by the Courts, since the same tantamounts to gross abuse of process of law.

In the light of the above, the Court quashed the FIR.

Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunwar Ranjan, Advocate and Mr. Atin Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2

 Title: XXX v. XXXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 384