In this case, MP High Court quashed an FIR filed by a woman working as a police constable against an army officer after 13 years of relationship alleging rape on the false promise of marriage. Court held that prolonged relationship between the parties indicated a consensual relationship rather than one obtained through deceit or coercion.

According to FIR, the accused met the complainant on 23.12.2012 at an Army Canteen in Bhopal and began communicating with her. The complainant alleged that accused portrayed himself as a bachelor and developed a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage.

In 2013, complainant discovered that accused was already married and when she confronted him, he told her that he was living separately from his wife, described his wife’s character as bad, and assured the complainant that he would obtain a divorce and marry her in the future.

Despite learning about his marital status, complainant continued the relationship with the accused for over a decade. The relationship continued until February 2025, when the complainant claimed that she discovered the accused was also in contact with other women and had given similar assurances to them. Following this, she filed a complaint alleging sexual intercourse by deceitful means.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that relationship was consensual between two mature adults. It was submitted that complainant herself was a well-educated woman working as a police constable in Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Organisation, and had known about petitioner’s marital status since 2013 but still continued the relationship until 2025 without raising any complaint.

Court also noted the conduct of the complainant in maintaining a prolonged relationship despite knowing that the accused was married.

Further emphasizing the circumstances of the case, Court noted that both individuals were educated and serving in disciplined forces.

Considering the long duration of the relationship and the surrounding circumstances, Court concluded that the case appeared to arise due to the breakdown of a consensual relationship rather than a criminal offence.

Court therefore held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and consequently quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and all subsequent proceedings against the accused.