"Met On Tinder, Stayed In Relationship For Over 3 Years": Calcutta High Court Acquits Army Officer In False Promise To Marry Case

The Calcutta High Court has acquitted an Army officer convicted for rape on the allegation that he established a physical relationship with a woman on a false promise of marriage, holding that the relationship, which began after the parties met on Tinder, was consensual and continued voluntarily for over three-and-a-half years.

A Division Bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held that there was no evidence to show that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the inception of the relationship. The Court consequently set aside his conviction under Section 376(1) IPC.

According to the prosecution, the complainant and the accused met through the dating application Tinder in May 2018. The complainant alleged that the accused represented himself as “single” on the app and soon proposed marriage to her.

The prosecution claimed that on June 2, 2018, the complainant agreed to enter into a physical relationship with the accused, believing his promise to marry her. The relationship thereafter continued in Kolkata, Mumbai and Bangalore.

It was further alleged that the complainant discovered in September 2018 that the accused was already married. However, according to the prosecution, he assured her that he would divorce his wife and marry her.

The High Court noted that the complainant admittedly continued the relationship even after learning about the accused's marital status. The Bench recorded that the parties travelled extensively together, cohabited and remained in a physical relationship both before and after the accused obtained divorce from his wife in November 2020.

Relying on several Supreme Court judgments dealing with rape allegations arising out of failed relationships, the High Court reiterated that a distinction must be drawn between breach of promise and a false promise made solely to obtain sexual consent.

The Bench held: “It is difficult for us to accept the prosecution version that [she] agreed to establish physical relationship with [him] under a misconception of fact, only on the basis of [his] promise to marry her.”

The Court further said: “...Being in love...[they] voluntarily established physical relationship...without being induced to do so...out [of] a false promise to marry.”

The Bench emphasised that there was nothing on record to show that the accused never intended to marry the complainant from the very beginning.

The Court also observed that since the accused was already married when the relationship began, the complainant was aware there was uncertainty surrounding any future marriage between them because his divorce was not guaranteed.

The High Court additionally found material inconsistencies in the complainant's version regarding pregnancy and abortion. While the written complaint alleged that the accused forced her to undergo abortion, her deposition before Court stated that she suffered a miscarriage due to stress. No medical documents were produced to support either version.

The Bench further noted that the FIR was lodged after nearly 3½ years of relationship and only after the relationship had turned acrimonious.

Allowing the appeal, the Court held: “It is not possible for us to hold that Nikhil is guilty of an offence under Section 375, IPC and therefore is liable to be convicted under Section 376(1) of the Code, given the long consensual physical relationship between Ankita and Nikhil spanning a period of 3½ years.”

The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were accordingly quashed.

Order to be uploaded shortly.