Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Can't Be Treated As Rape: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) IPC, holding that a failed consensual relationship, which does not culminate in marriage due to temperamental differences, cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution.

Justice Alok Jain said, "the present FIR seems to be an abuse of process of law, as it is apparent that both the parties were major and in a consensual relationship and the subsequent fall out of the relationship was only on account of the temperament differences. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as an offence under Section 376 of IPC."

The Court observed that, "that human relationships are dynamic and may change with time. A consensual relationship by itself cannot give rise to criminal liability under Section 376 IPC unless statutory ingredients necessary to constitute the said offence are clearly made out."

Merely because consensual relationship does not culminate into marriage due to incompatibility, cannot be forcibly converted into life long relationship. In the present case, owing to the irreconcilable differences between the petitioner and the complainant, the complainant chose to pressurize the petitioner by making repeated complaints and subsequently lodging the present FIR, it added.

The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR, along with the chargesheet and the order dismissing the petitioner's discharge application.

The FIR was lodged by the complainant alleging that she had entered into a physical relationship with the petitioner on the false promise of marriage, and that the petitioner later refused to marry her, thereby sexually and emotionally exploiting her.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual and both parties were majors and aware of the nature of their relationship. A roka ceremony had also been performed, showing bona fide intention to marry. The relationship later broke down due to temperamental differences, particularly after the petitioner's posting in a sensitive area.

Opposing the petition, counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner had enticed her into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage and later withdrew his commitment, causing mental and physical trauma.

The State argued that the FIR and investigation material disclosed a prima facie offence, and that the High Court should not undertake a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court observed that the complainant was an educated adult and fully aware that the parties were not married at the time of entering into the relationship

There were no allegations of force, coercion, or false promise at the inception of the relationship and consensual relationship, even if it subsequently breaks down, does not constitute rape.

Therefore, the Court found that from the perusal of the record, it does not appear that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by petitioner was false to begin with.

Perusal of FIR further itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by petitioner due to intervening circumstances consequently the relationship ended and the present FIR came to be registered, noted the Court.

In the light of the above, FIR along with all the subsequent proceedings was quashed.

Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Samra, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Tanheer Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.

Title: XXX v. XXX