Delhi High Court | Section 376 IPC | Consensual Relationship Between Educated Adults Cannot Be Construed As Rape On False Promise Of Marriage
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held that when an independent and educated woman willingly continues a romantic relationship even with knowledge of her partner’s marital status, such conduct cannot be construed in law as being misled or exploited. The Court observed that permitting a failed relationship between two consenting adults to be treated as the offence of rape would run contrary to the constitutional vision of justice and undermine the very object of sexual offences law. The judgment arose from a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, where the central issue concerned allegations of a false promise of marriage.
The petitioner, approached the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of a First Information Report lodged on 21 November 2024 at Police Station Nabi Karim, North Delhi. The FIR was based on a complaint by Ms. “SP,” a 24-year-old resident of Bihar, alleging sexual exploitation under the false pretext of marriage.
According to the complaint, the parties first met on 18 January 2023 at Patna, in the presence of their families, during a proposed marriage arrangement. At this meeting, a dowry demand of ₹1 crore was raised, resulting in the marriage proposal not materialising. Despite this, the petitioner continued to remain in contact with the complainant, presenting himself as genuine and supportive of her academic ambitions, while assuring her repeatedly of marriage.
The complainant alleged that on 8–9 July 2023, during a trip to Varanasi, the petitioner established physical relations with her on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, similar incidents took place at Ujjain, Kolkata, aboard the Himgiri Express train, and on multiple occasions in Delhi, including stays at hotels in Patparganj and Model Town. She claimed that these relations were sustained under assurances of marriage.
Subsequently, the complainant learnt that the petitioner had married another woman, Ms. “X,” in April 2024, allegedly in exchange for dowry of ₹60 lakhs. Despite confrontation, the petitioner allegedly persuaded her emotionally, including during her pregnancy, and even suggested fabricating a backdated marriage certificate to January 2024.
The complaint further alleged that the petitioner threatened her and her family, provoked her to commit suicide, and subjected her to continued harassment. During mediation at the Women’s Cell, Sabzi Mandi, the petitioner denied knowing her, which led to the registration of the FIR under Section 376 IPC.
The complainant underwent medical examination, and her statement was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was arrested on 27 November 2024. A chargesheet was later filed for offences under Sections 376/506 IPC and Sections 69/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner’s counsel argued before the High Court that the complaint was a second proceeding on the same allegations, and that the parties had in fact solemnised a marriage on 21 January 2024 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur, Bihar. A marriage certificate was produced in support. It was submitted that the FIR was false, motivated, and filed out of vengeance.
Conversely, the State and the complainant contended that the petitioner never intended to marry the complainant, that physical relations were established on repeated false assurances, and that investigation confirmed this account. It was argued that the case squarely fell within the offence of rape on false promise of marriage and therefore could not be quashed.
Justice Sharma noted: “The gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had induced the complainant into establishing physical relations with him on the false pretext of marriage, despite having no intention to marry her, and had later solemnized marriage with another woman.”
The Court recounted the complainant’s description of incidents across multiple locations but observed: “The circumstances do indicate that the relations were consensual.”
The Court relied on the marriage certificate dated 21 January 2024 from Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur, verified during investigation, stating: “In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner had no intention of marrying the complainant; on the contrary, the fact of marriage itself indicates that he did marry her.”
Quoting the Supreme Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court recorded: “Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex… There may be a case where the prosecutrix agrees to have sexual intercourse on account of her love and passion for the accused, and not solely on account of misrepresentation.”
Similarly, citing Shivashankar v. State of Karnataka (2019), the Court noted: “It is difficult to hold sexual intercourse in the course of a relationship which has continued for eight years, as ‘rape’, especially in the face of the complainant’s own allegation that they lived together as man and wife.”
Justice Sharma further observed: “The record reveals that the complainant and the petitioner had travelled together to different parts of India, stayed at various hotels, and established physical relations voluntarily. Significantly, the material also indicates that even after the complainant had come to know that the petitioner had contracted another marriage… she continued to accompany him and maintained sexual relations.”
Addressing the complainant’s claim of being left without remedy, the Court stated: “If it is held that the parties were already married, then the allegation of rape would not be sustainable. At the same time, the subsequent stand taken by the petitioner before the CAW Cell may place the complainant in a position where she is unable to pursue allegations under Section 376 of IPC. In this Court’s considered opinion, the answer has to be in the negative.”
The Court recorded: “The criminal justice system is increasingly being burdened with FIRs under Section 376 IPC where allegations of sexual exploitation are levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships.”
It added: “The role of the Court is not to sit in judgment over the morality of such relationships, nor to enforce notions of social propriety between consenting adults. The law cannot be stretched to shield a party from the foreseeable consequences of choices made consciously and repeatedly.”
The Bench concluded by recording that “for the reasons recorded in the preceding discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is a fit one to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in question.” The Court accordingly ordered, “the FIR No. 447/2024, registered on 21.11.2024 at P.S. Nabi Karim (North), Delhi, is quashed alongwith all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.” It further directed that the petition and pending applications stood allowed and disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suryanarayan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Yadav, Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Ms. Aashi Arora, Mr. Harshith Pottangi, Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi and Ms. Ritika Arora, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.
Case Title: XXX v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7721
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 3061/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13572/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
