In Ankit Raj v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors, Delhi HC quashed FIR registered u/s 376 IPC, holding that a consensual relationship between two educated adults cannot later be converted into a rape case merely because the relationship failed.

Court observed that permitting every failed relationship to be prosecuted as 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 complainant, a 24-year-old woman, alleged that she had been exploited under the false pretext of marriage by the petitioner, Ankit Raj. She stated that they first met on 18.01.2023 during marriage talks, which failed due to a dowry demand of ₹1 Cr. Despite this, petitioner allegedly continued contacting her, assuring marriage, and established sexual relations with her at various places including Varanasi, Ujjain, Kolkata, and Delhi.

The complainant further alleged that Ankit Raj married another woman in April 2024 for a dowry of ₹60 lakhs, concealed this fact from her and continued relations with her even during her pregnancy. When she confronted him, he promised to marry her and take care of their unborn child. Later he threatened the complainant and her family members with dire consequences. Based on her complaint, FIR u/s 376 IPC was lodged on 21.11.2024, and Ankit Raj was arrested.

The petitioner argued that he and the complainant had in fact married on 21.01.2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur, Bihar, and produced a marriage certificate verified by the IO. He claimed that the complainant herself acknowledged him as her “husband” before the CAW Cell, but later turned vindictive after he married another woman under family pressure. He contended that the FIR was false, motivated, and amounted to abuse of process.

Court examined the factual matrix and noted, “once the formal proposal of marriage between the families had failed due to the demand of dowry, the complainant and the petitioner had nonetheless continued to meet each other… and had voluntarily entered into a relationship, including a physical one”. Importantly, even after knowing that Ankit Raj had contracted another marriage, the complainant “continued to accompany him and maintained sexual relations with him”.

Referring to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, Court reiterated that for rape on false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was false from the inception and that the accused never intended to marry. Similarly, in Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka, long cohabitation resembling marriage was held not to constitute rape. Court held that here, “the fact that the parties had undergone a marriage ceremony negates the allegation that the petitioner had no intention to marry the complainant”.

Court also highlighted that the complainant was an educated and independent woman preparing for UPSC exams, capable of making informed decisions.

Therefore, Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

It held, “The present case is a clear example of such a situation, where a consensual relationship, albeit complicated, cannot be clothed with the allegation of rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in the manner one party desired.”