The Jharkhand High Court has held that where a physical relationship between two adults continued for over seven years, and there was no specific allegation that the man had no intention to marry the woman when he made the promise, the allegations at best disclosed a consensual physical relationship and did not constitute rape on a false promise of marriage.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary made the observation while quashing the criminal proceedings, including the FIR and cognizance order, against a man accused of committing rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of Mahila (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 12 of 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 1945 of 2024, and the cognizance order dated August 16, 2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

According to the prosecution case, the petitioner met the informant at a friend's marriage ceremony in 2016. The two exchanged mobile numbers and subsequently developed a relationship. It was alleged that the petitioner used to meet and speak to the informant near Giridih Railway Station and, by promising to marry her, sexually exploited her. The relationship continued thereafter.

The informant alleged that on December 20, 2022, the petitioner took her to Ranchi and kept her in a hotel on December 21, 2022, where he established a physical relationship with her. She alleged that after sexually exploiting her for over seven years and ruining her life, the petitioner severed the relationship. On April 2, 2023, he allegedly switched off his mobile phone. When the informant contacted his father, the petitioner and his family members allegedly abused her and refused to agree to her marriage with the petitioner.

Based on her written report, the police registered the case and, after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate thereafter took cognizance of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the informant was a major when the relationship began in 2016 and that the physical relationship continued for more than seven years. It was submitted that the FIR itself had been lodged after the petitioner and his family allegedly refused to solemnise the marriage, demonstrating that the relationship between the two adults was consensual.

The High Court examined whether the allegations disclosed a false promise to marry capable of vitiating the woman's consent. The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., where the Court had held that a promise to marry would amount to a false promise only where the maker had no intention of honouring it at the time the promise was made. The High Court noted:

“Where the promise to marry is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a 'misconception of fact' that vitiates the woman's 'consent'.”

The Supreme Court had also clarified that a mere breach of a promise cannot be treated as a false promise, and that to establish a false promise, the maker must have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it.

Applying this principle, the High Court noted that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner did not intend to marry the informant from the inception, when he had promised to marry her.

The Court further noted that the undisputed position was that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the informant continued for over seven years without protest and that the FIR was lodged after the petitioner and his family members allegedly refused to solemnise the marriage. In these circumstances, the Court held:

“Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the entire allegations made by the informant, even if are considered to be true in their entirety, at the most the same discloses a case of consensual physical relationship between the parties and is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.”

Holding that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR and the cognizance order dated August 16, 2024.

Case Title: Lalu Mahtha @ Lalu Mahta v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 915 of 2025

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sudeep Ranjan, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl. P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2: None

Click Here To Read/Download Order