'Failure Of Love Not A Crime': Orissa HC Quashes Rape Charges Against Man Accused Of Sex On False Promise Of Marriage

Post By 24law
February 23, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Orissa High Court has quashed rape charges against a man accused of engaging in a prolonged physical relationship with a woman under an alleged false promise of marriage. The single bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ruled that a failed relationship cannot be criminalized, emphasizing that legal protection does not extend to every broken promise in a personal relationship.

Background of the Case

The complainant alleged that she met the petitioner in 2012 while pursuing a computer course in Sambalpur. They developed a close friendship, which eventually led to a romantic relationship. She claimed that the petitioner engaged in a physical relationship with her based on a false promise of marriage and later failed to fulfill his commitment. She also alleged that the petitioner administered contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy and subjected her to mental and physical torture.

In 2023, the complainant initiated a civil proceeding before the Family Court, Sambalpur, seeking a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and an injunction to prevent him from marrying someone else. In the civil suit, she asserted that they had solemnized their marriage at Samaleswari Temple, Sambalpur, on 03.02.2021, by exchanging garlands, vermilion, and a mangalsutra. She further claimed they had applied for marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act, but the petitioner failed to appear for registration on 18.03.2021. Following the alleged failure to register the marriage, the complainant filed an FIR, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC against the petitioner. The petitioner, in response, sought to quash the criminal proceedings.

Court’s Observations and Findings

The High Court observed that the complainant's claims contained contradictions that significantly impacted the case. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner engaged in a physical relationship with her based on a false promise of marriage, but later stated in a civil case that she was already married to him. The Court noted that this inconsistency, coupled with the lack of materials suggesting coercion or deception at the start of the relationship, was crucial in deciding the case.

Referring to Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that: "Consent denotes an active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of the act complained of." The Court also relied on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court laid down two conditions for establishing whether consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact arising from a false promise of marriage: "Firstly, the promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. Secondly, the false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act."

The Court referred to G. Achyut Kumar v. State of Odisha, a previous judgment by Justice Panigrahi, which had questioned the automatic application of Section 90 of the IPC to cases involving consent under a false promise of marriage. The judgment noted: "The law is well settled that consent obtained on a false promise to marry is not a valid consent. However, the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of I.P.C. to determine the effect of consent under Section 375 of I.P.C. deserves a serious relook. The law holding false promise to marriage as rape appears to be erroneous."

Considering these precedents, the Court concluded that the complainant’s consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact. The Bench observed: "The law does not extend its protection to every broken promise nor does it impose criminality upon every failed relationship. The Petitioner and the prosecutrix entered into a relationship in 2012, when both were competent, consenting adults, capable of making their own choices, of exercising their own will, and of shaping their own futures. That the relationship did not culminate in marriage may be a source of personal grievance, but the failure of love is not a crime, nor does the law transform disappointment into deception."

The Court further remarked that the criminal justice system should not be used as a tool for personal vengeance due to the collapse of a personal relationship. It stated: "The intervention of the court in this particular case was imperative to shield the criminal justice system from being wielded as an instrument of vengeance for the collapse of a personal relationship. Quashing the criminal proceedings is necessary to protect the integrity of the law and prevent it from being used to litigate personal disappointments or moral conflicts. The justice system is meant to address genuine crimes, not to serve as a battleground for failed relationships."

Resultantly, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.