Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that a consensual sexual relationship between adults cannot be construed as rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage. The bench, headed by Justice Kirti Singh, quashed an FIR filed against a man under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, noting that the parties had entered into a consensual relationship after their engagement, and the marriage could not proceed due to differences between the families. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot automatically arise from unfulfilled marriage plans without evidence of fraudulent intent.
The matter arose when a woman filed a complaint alleging rape, claiming that the man had engaged in sexual relations on the pretext of marriage. The parties had been in a long-standing consensual relationship, became engaged, and even performed a roka ceremony. The marriage was initially scheduled for November 2024 but could not occur due to irreconcilable differences between the two families. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and his family had made unreasonable demands, including an expensive wedding and a luxury vehicle, and later called off the wedding.
The complainant claimed that the sexual relationship was induced under a false promise of marriage. The petitioner denied any intention to deceive and contended that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the subsequent breakdown of marriage plans was due to genuine differences between the families.
Justice Singh underscored that for a rape allegation based on a false promise of marriage, it must be proven that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the outset and had a fraudulent motive. The Court referred to Apex Court precedents, including Amol Bhagwal Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Jothiragawan v. State, which held that breach of a marriage promise alone does not constitute rape unless deceitful intent is established at the time of consent.
The High Court noted that the relationship between the parties was consensual, involving mature and educated adults, and there was no evidence suggesting that the petitioner had acted in bad faith. The Court observed that the FIR appeared to criminalize a consensual relationship that failed to result in marriage, amounting to an abuse of the legal process.
In view of the above, the High Court quashed the FIR, holding that consensual relationships between adults cannot be retroactively treated as rape simply due to a marriage not materializing. The Court emphasized that courts must differentiate between genuine fraud and personal grievances arising from broken engagements.
Picture Source :
