Highly Educated Lady Working In MNC Didn't Lodge FIR For Months: P&H High Court Quashes Rape Case, Says Relationship Was 'Consensual'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a rape case registered against a man, holding that a prolonged consensual relationship between two mature individuals cannot be criminalised as rape on the basis of a failed promise to marry.

Justice N.S. Shekhawat noted, "Even, before taking divorce from other person, the respondent No.2 went to Bali with the petitioner from 09.10.2022 to 17.10.2022. Even, both of them had visited various places and stayed together in the same hotel at different hill stations. Apart from that, she also visited Egypt from 16.09.2023 to 27.09.2023 with the present petitioner and admittedly, she had physical relations with the present petitioner. However, she did not lodge the F.I.R for several months, even though she is highly educated lady and is working in multinational company."

The petitioner contended that both parties were colleagues working in the same company and were in a consensual relationship. It was argued that the prosecutrix was herself married at the time the relationship began and was undergoing divorce proceedings, which culminated only in October 2023.

Counsel submitted that the parties had travelled together to multiple destinations, including Kasauli, Bali, Mussoorie, and Egypt, out of their own free will, demonstrating a voluntary and intimate relationship. It was further argued that no false promise of marriage could be alleged, particularly when the prosecutrix herself was legally married during the relevant period.

Court's Findings

The Court noted that the prosecutrix was a well-educated, mature woman who had been living separately from her husband since 2016 and was engaged in matrimonial litigation, culminating in a divorce decree on October 6, 2023.

It observed that when the parties first entered into a relationship in 2022, the prosecutrix was still married and thus legally incapable of marrying the petitioner at that stage. In such circumstances, the Court found it “highly improbable” that any promise of marriage could have been the basis of the relationship.

The Court also took note of the fact that the parties had travelled together multiple times and maintained a prolonged association, indicating a consensual relationship rather than one induced by deception.

Holding that consent under Section 375 IPC must involve an “active and reasoned deliberation,” the Court reiterated the settled distinction between a false promise made with no intention of being fulfilled and a mere breach of promise.

No Misconception of Fact

Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, including Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, and Vinod Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that for consent to be vitiated under Section 90 IPC, the promise of marriage must be false from the very inception and must directly induce the sexual relationship.

In the present case, the Court found no material to establish that the petitioner had made a false promise with a dishonest intention at the outset. Rather, the circumstances suggested a consensual relationship based on mutual attraction and companionship.

The Court further observed that the delay in lodging the FIR, despite the prosecutrix being an educated professional, also weighed against the prosecution case.

Concluding that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n) by and 506 IPC were not made out, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the FIR, chargesheet and all consequential proceedings were quashed qua the petitioner.

Mr.P.S Ahluwalia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bhavi Kapur, Advocate

Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Rishabh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Nitin Jain, Advocate with Ms. Rishika Mangla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: XXXX v. XXXX