Telangana High Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused Of Rape On Promise Of Marriage, Notes Five-Year Relationship With Complainant

Quashing an FIR against a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage, the Telangana High Court noted that the complainant and the accused were in a consensual relationship for five years and it cannot be alleged that accused had dishonest intention of luring the complainant into a sexual relationship and deceiving her.

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, allowing the criminal petition, observed:

“The allegations would reveal that there was consensual relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. However, there is an alleged promise of marriage. The said promise of marriage is alleged to have been made five years prior to lodging of complaint. According to the contents of the complaint also, the physical relationship with the petitioner continued over a period of five years. The de facto complainant is aged 26 years as on the date of complaint, which means that when she entered into the relationship with the petitioner, she was 21 years old and was a working woman. So, she is well aware of the consequences and further, she mentioned in the complaint that when she conceived two years prior to lodging of the complaint, both of them decided to go for abortion which discloses that the de facto complainant also was willing for abortion. lt is reiterated that the de facto complainant was in a physical relationship with the petitioner for a period of five years.

It is also to be noted that when the de facto complainant conceived, she along with the petitioner decided to go for abortion and further the de facto complainant continued to be in physical relationship with the petitioner herein for another two years after abortion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a consensual relationship. Thus, the petitioner cannot be alleged with any dishonest intention of luring the de facto complainant for sexual relationship and deceiving her.”

The Court accordingly quashed proceedings in the case pending before the Special Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

The petitioner-accused was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) (rape), 417 (cheating), 420 (inducing delivery of property) and 312 (causing miscarriage) of the Indian Penal Code on allegations that he induced the de facto complainant into a physical relationship on a promise of marriage and later married another woman.

According to the complaint, the parties became acquainted through phone calls while the complainant was working at Bank of Baroda, and their relationship developed over time into a close association. It was alleged that the petitioner promised marriage, following which they entered into a physical relationship that continued for about five years. During this period, the complainant conceived, and both parties decided to terminate the pregnancy. The complaint was lodged after the petitioner married another woman in April 2024.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the relationship was entirely consensual, involving two adults, and that the complainant was a “matured woman” aware of the consequences of her actions. It was argued that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 417, 420 and 312 IPC were not attracted.

It was further submitted that the complainant had previously lodged similar complaints against other individuals, indicating a pattern of false allegations.

Counsel for the de facto complainant argued that her consent was obtained solely on the basis of a promise of marriage, which the petitioner never intended to fulfil. It was submitted that the petitioner, being a government employee, misled and “lured” her into a physical relationship and thereby committed rape and cheating.

It was further contended that the case raised triable issues, and the proceedings ought not to be quashed at the threshold.

The Court, upon examining the complaint, found that the relationship between the parties was undisputedly consensual and continued over five years.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the allegation of rape on the basis of a promise of marriage was not sustainable, as there was no material to show that the promise was made with dishonest intention from the outset.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Court reiterated that a consensual relationship that subsequently fails cannot be converted into a criminal offence.

Holding that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the case against the petitioner.

Case Title: X v. State of Telangana & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7200 of 2025

Appearance: Sri M. Rama Krishna for the Petitioner; Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Sri Prakash Yarra for Respondent No.2.

Click Here To Read/Download Order