Recently, the Delhi High Court considered a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations concerned sexual relations said to have been induced on the false promise of marriage. The Court had to examine whether the facts disclosed a genuine case of rape or merely reflected a consensual relationship that later broke down.
Brief Facts:
The complainant, a 24-year-old woman from Bihar, stated that she had first met the Petitioner during a family meeting in Patna. At that time, a dowry demand of one crore rupees was allegedly raised. Despite this obstacle, the Petitioner continued to stay in touch with her and gave repeated assurances of marriage. On the strength of these assurances, she entered into a relationship with him. She alleged that during trips to Varanasi, Ujjain, Kolkata and Delhi, he established sexual relations with her while assuring her that they would marry. Later, she discovered that the Petitioner had married another woman, allegedly for a dowry of sixty lakhs. Even then, he persuaded her to continue the relationship, suggested backdating a marriage certificate, and maintained sexual intimacy with her. She further alleged threats and mental harassment, including during her pregnancy. An FIR was registered on the basis of her complaint.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the FIR was nothing but a second complaint on the same allegations, as the complainant had earlier approached the CAW Cell, referring to him as her husband. He submitted that they had solemnised a marriage at the Arya Samaj Mandir in Bihar, which was evidenced by a marriage certificate verified by the investigating officer. He further claimed that the complainant herself wanted secrecy due to her UPSC preparation and later turned against him when he married another woman under family pressure. The Petitioner insisted that the relationship was consensual throughout and no case of rape could be made out.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The State and the complainant opposed the petition. They argued that the Petitioner had never intended to marry the complainant and had induced her into sexual relations solely on false assurances. They pointed out that he later denied even knowing her before the CAW Cell, which revealed his mala fides. It was contended that the FIR clearly disclosed a prima facie case of rape on false pretext of marriage and that quashing at this stage would be unjustified.
Observations of the Court:
The Court carefully examined the factual background and applied settled principles. It noted that “The record reveals that the complainant and the Petitioner had travelled together to different parts of India, stayed at various hotels, and established physical relations voluntarily. Significantly, the material also indicates that even after the complainant had come to know that the Petitioner had contracted another marriage with Ms. ‘X’, she continued to accompany him and maintained sexual relations with him. These circumstances lend credence to the contention of the Petitioner that the relationship between the parties was consensual and not induced by a false promise of marriage.”
The Court further observed that “If it is the complainant’s case, as alleged in the FIR, that no marriage had actually been solemnised at Arya Samaj Mandir and that only a backdated certificate had been fabricated, it remains unexplained why she continued to engage in sexual relations with the Petitioner even after knowing that he had married another woman, thereby making a second marriage with her legally impossible. On the other hand, if her case is that a marriage did in fact take place between the parties, as she herself stated before the CAW Cell, then the allegation of rape on the false pretext of marriage cannot be sustained, as the relationship was between spouses.”
The Court also expressed broader concern about misuse of rape provisions in failed relationships, remarking that “The criminal justice system is increasingly being burdened with FIRs for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC where allegations of sexual exploitation are levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships. To permit every such failed relationship to be converted into a criminal prosecution for rape would be contrary not only to the constitutional vision of justice, but also to the very spirit and object of the law of sexual offences.”
The decision of the Court:
The Court concluded that the facts did not establish that the Petitioner had no intention of marrying the complainant from the beginning. On the contrary, the Arya Samaj marriage certificate, verified by the investigating officer, showed otherwise. Since the relationship was consensual and continued even after the complainant knew about his other marriage, the allegations did not satisfy the ingredients of rape on false promise of marriage. The FIR and all consequential proceedings were therefore quashed. The petition was allowed.
Case Title: Ankit Raj versus State of NCT of Delhi and Others.
Case No: CRL.M.C. 3061/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13572/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Dr Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Suryanarayan Singh, Adv. Raman Yadav, Adv. Priyam Kaushik, Adv. Aashi Arora, Adv. Harshith Pottangi, Adv. Akriti Chaturvedi, Adv. Ritika Arora.
Counsel for the Respondents: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with SI Soni Lal, P.S. Nabi Karim
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
