Girl Cannot Lodge FIR Alleging Rape Merely Because Love Relationship Failed Later: Madhya Pradesh HC

The case involved a petition filed by a man seeking to quash a criminal case where he was accused of rape on the pretext of marriage. The complainant alleged that the accused had promised marriage during their relationship, which lasted until 2020. However, the complaint was lodged in 2021 after the relationship ended.

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

Senior Advocate Manish Datt appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate A. Bhurok appeared for the Respondent.

The Court found it implausible that the physical relationship continued solely on the basis of a false promise to marry, especially given its longevity and the absence of a complaint until after the breakup. The Court added, “in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is difficult to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioner that he developed physical relation 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 further elucidated that merely because a long-term consensual relationship did not culminate in marriage, a woman cannot retroactively allege rape.

The judgment highlighted the common youthful belief that a serious relationship would naturally lead to marriage, but clarified that disappointment or feeling betrayed when such expectations are not met does not constitute grounds for a rape accusation.

The Court differentiated between a false promise of marriage and a genuine breach of promise due to unforeseen circumstances. It emphasized that Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with situations where consent is obtained under a misconception of fact, does not apply when a woman voluntarily enters into a physical relationship under the belief that marriage would follow.

The Court held, “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 physical relation was obtained by the petitioner on the false pretext of marriage.”

Ultimately, the High Court quashed the criminal case against the petitioner, concluding that the consensual nature of the relationship was evident from the record, and the failure of the relationship to lead to marriage did not render the initial consent invalid.

Cause Title: X v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Manish Datt and Advocate Eshaan Datt