Court holds prolonged consensual relationship and unexplained delay failed to establish rape on the pretext of marriage under Sections 376 and 506 IPC
FIR Quashed
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court held that the facts showed a prolonged consensual relationship.
It said the case did not show rape on the pretext of marriage.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat also noted the unexplained delay of more than 16 years in lodging the complaint.
The Court said this delay had significance in the facts of the case.
Court Notes Delay And Prior Knowledge Of Marriage
The Court noted that the petitioner married Simranjit Kaur in 2001.
At that time, respondent No. 2, the complainant, was around 16 years old.
She was not of marriageable age then.
The Court further noted that the complainant knew about the petitioner’s marriage since 2001-2002.
However, she lodged the FIR only on July 29, 2017.
Therefore, the Court found it difficult to accept her case.
It said the complainant could not have allowed physical relations for several years only on an alleged false assurance of marriage.
Court Finds Consensual Relationship
Justice Shekhawat observed that respondent No. 2 was a grown-up and well-educated woman.
The Court said it was difficult to believe that she continued the relationship for several years due to a false promise.
It also found it difficult to accept that she could not discover the petitioner’s alleged deceit for almost 16 years.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the petitioner and respondent No. 2 had consensual physical relations.
The Court held that the ingredients of offences under Sections 376 and 506 IPC were absent in the peculiar facts.
Petition Filed Under Section 528 BNSS
The petitioner filed the plea under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
He sought quashing of FIR No. 0128 dated July 29, 2017.
Police Station City Rupnagar had registered the FIR.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner had physical relations with her for several years on a false promise of marriage.
She also alleged threats, harassment, confinement and involvement of the petitioner’s family members.
Petitioner’s Submissions
The petitioner is a serving police official.
He argued that the allegations were inherently improbable.
He specifically denied the allegation that the relationship began when the complainant was around 10 or 11 years old.
He also pointed to the unexplained delay of nearly two decades in filing the FIR.
Further, he argued that the complainant knew about his marriage since 2001-2002.
Despite that knowledge, she continued the relationship.
State And Complainant Opposed Quashing
The State opposed the quashing petition.
The complainant also opposed the plea.
They argued that the investigation supported the allegations.
They further submitted that the petitioner made a false promise of marriage.
According to them, this false promise vitiated the complainant’s consent.
Court Examines Law On Consent
The High Court examined the legal position on consent under Section 375 IPC.
It also considered “misconception of fact” under Section 90 IPC.
The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments on false promise of marriage.
It also discussed the distinction between a false promise and a later breach of promise.
In addition, the Court relied on Jai Dhupar v. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-51121-2024 (O&M).
False Promise And Breach Of Promise Distinguished
The Court said a false promise of marriage arises when the maker never intended to fulfil it.
In such a case, the accused uses the promise to deceive the woman into sexual relations.
However, every breach of promise is not a false promise.
A promise made in good faith may later remain unfulfilled.
The Court said such a later failure cannot automatically amount to rape.
It held that consent under Section 375 IPC stands vitiated only when misconception of fact forms the basis of the woman’s decision.
Case Details
Case Title: XXX v. XXX
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Justice N.S. Shekhawat
FIR: FIR No. 0128 dated July 29, 2017
Police Station: City Rupnagar
Provisions: Sections 376 and 506 IPC; Section 528 BNSS; Sections 375 and 90 IPC
Appearances
For the Petitioner: Ms. Samridhi Sareen, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Additional A.G., Punjab
For Respondent No. 2: Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate
