In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a criminal case filed against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, clarifying that a woman cannot allege rape merely because a long-term consensual relationship did not culminate in marriage.

 The decision was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dwivedi of the Jabalpur Bench, who emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a breach of promise and a false promise made with the intent to deceive.

The case involved a man who had been in a consensual relationship with the complainant for ten years. 

The relationship began in high school and included physical relations until around 2020.

 The complainant alleged that the man had promised to marry her but later refused, prompting her to file a First Information Report (FIR) in 2021, accusing him of rape by making a false promise of marriage.Justice Dwivedi highlighted that the Supreme Court and various High Courts have consistently held that consensual relationships, even if they do not result in marriage, cannot be classified as rape. He noted that youthful relationships often carry the hope and expectation of marriage, but when these relationships do not lead to marriage, it does not automatically constitute a criminal offense of rape.

“In the young age when a boy and a girl attract towards each other and they flow in emotions and believe that they love each other, normally they carry the impression that their relationship will naturally lead to marriage. However, sometimes it fails, and the girl, considering herself to be betrayed and deceived, cannot lodge an FIR saying that rape has been committed with her,” Justice Dwivedi observed.

The Court acknowledged the complainant’s feelings of betrayal but emphasized that a consensual physical relationship over an extended period, without any complaint until the man refused to marry, could not be retroactively construed as rape. The judge pointed out that the relationship had been consensual from its inception and had continued for a decade, suggesting mutual consent rather than coercion or deceit.“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioner that he developed a physical relationship with the prosecutrix on a false promise of marriage

 It is also difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship, which continued for over 10 years, as ‘rape’ especially in the facts of the complainant’s own allegation,” the Court stated.Justice Dwivedi further differentiated between a false promise of marriage made with the intention to deceive and a genuine promise that could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances. 

The Court reiterated that not all broken promises amount to rape, particularly when the relationship was consensual and prolonged.“There may, of course, be circumstances when a person having the best of intentions is unable to marry the victim owing to various unavoidable circumstances,” the Court noted. 

In such cases, a woman cannot claim she was under a misconception of fact when entering into a physical relationship.The Court explained that for a claim to fall within the ambit of “misconception of fact” under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the misconception must be immediate and relevant to the act of consent. 

Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the accused and quashed the criminal case against him, concluding that the elements required to constitute rape under Section 375 of the IPC were not met.

“The present case does not come within the definition of rape as defined in Section 375 of IPC because consensual relationship and affair between the parties are apparent on the face of the record and admitted by the prosecutrix herself, and therefore if ultimately their relationship could not culminate into marriage and the promise made by the petitioner was not fulfilled by him, it cannot be said that consent given by the prosecutrix for developing a physical relationship was obtained by the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage,” the Court said.