In this case, the Punjab and Haryana HC quashed the FIR against a man accused of rape on the false promise of marriage and charged u/s 376(2)(n) IPC. Court held that a consensual physical relationship between adults cannot be construed as rape merely because it did not culminate in marriage.

The facts of the case reveal that the complainant and the petitioner became friends and later got engaged. During this courtship period, they entered into a consensual relationship. A roka ceremony was performed and their marriage was scheduled for November 2024. However, the wedding could not materialise due to irreconcilable differences between the two families, after which the complainant lodged an FIR alleging rape on the pretext of a false promise of marriage.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioner and his family had demanded an expensive wedding and a SUV. Subsequently, petitioner informed her that his family was against the union and called off the marriage. Based on these allegations, FIR u/s 376(2)(n) IPC was registered.

Justice Kirti Singh, while examining the matter, reiterated that for a charge of rape on the ground of false promise to marry, it must be proven that the consent was obtained from the very inception with a fraudulent intention never to marry.

Court also relied on Supreme Court precedents including Amol Bhagwal Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Jothiragawan v. State, where it was held that a breach of promise to marry does not automatically amount to rape unless fraudulent intent existed at the time of giving consent.

The High Court noted that the admitted position in this case was that the parties were in a long-standing consensual relationship, their families had discussed marriage, and even a roka ceremony was performed. Justice Singh recorded: “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.”

The bench further pointed out that no material was produced by the complainant to show that the petitioner had ever deceived her into the relationship. The Court remarked, “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.”

Accordingly, Court quashed the FIR and held “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.”