'Highly Educated Woman In Police Dept Couldn't Have Continued 13-Yr Relationship Without Consent': MP HC Quashes FIR Against Army Officer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Thursday (March 11), dismissed an FIR against an Army Officer, for engaging in sexual intercourse using deceitful means, observing that the complainant was a highly educated woman working with the Police Department and could not have continued a relationship of 13 years with a married man without consent. The bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed; "It is not convincible that the complainant or any woman who is working in a Police Department would continue to meet the petitioner or maintained a prolonged physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. The petitioner and the complainant both are highly educated and working in uniformed services therefore and it cannot be believed that on the pretext of false marriage the complainant developed the physical relationship with the petitioner and continued the same without any demur or objection even after knowing the fact that the petitioner is already married". The petitioner has approached the court seeking the quashment of the FIR filed by respondent no 2 for criminal intimidation (Section 351(2)) and sexual intercourse by deceitful means (Section 69) of BNS. Per the FIR, the petitioner met the complainant in the Army Canteen of Bhopal on December 23, 2012 and started talking to each other. The petitioner allegedly developed a physical relationship with the complainant by portraying himself as a bachelor. However, in 2013, the complainant discovered that the petitioner was married. Upon inquiry from the petitioner, he claimed that his wife had a bad character and that he was residing separately. He allegedly assured the complainant that he would divorce his wife and thereafter would marry the complainant.The couple allegedly continued their relationship till 2025, when on February 25, 2025 the complainant discovered that the petitioner was also in contact with other women and had similarly assured them. The complainant thus filed a complaint, which resulted in the FIR being registered. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the physical relationship was consensual. It was also contended that the complainant was a mature lady and was working as a Police Constable in the Special Police Establishment in the Lokayukt Organisation of Bhopal. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had never promised to marry the complainant and that the relationship continued the relationship despite having knowledge that the petitioner is a married man. The counsel appearing for the State argued that the relationship was initially developed due to the false representation by the petitioner that he was a bachelor. The bench noted that the relationship started in 2012 and continued for 12 or 13 years. It was also noted that both the petitioner and complainant were well educated, with the complainant working as a lady constable in the Special Police Establishment, whereas the petitioner was working in the Indian Army.The court noted that the phrase consent of a woman in Section 375of IPC mandates that the consent must be an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. The bench empahsized that"To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. 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. 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". In the present case, the bench noted that it was not convincing that the complainant, who was working in the Police Department, continued such a prolonged relationship with the petitioner in the absence of voluntary consent. Further, it was observed that both parties were highly educated and working in uniformed services, and therefore it cannot be believed that the complainant developed a physical relationship with the petitioner on the pretext of false marriage. Thus, the court quashed the FIR and allowed the petition. Case Title: X v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-35779-2025]Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 77For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal with Advocate Awadhesh Kumar AhirwarFor State: Advocate Nalini GurungFor Complainant: Advocate Dinesh TripathClick here to read/download the Order

'Highly Educated Woman In Police Dept Couldn't Have Continued 13-Yr Relationship Without Consent': MP HC Quashes FIR Against Army Officer

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags