The Punjab & Haryana High Court cancelled a rape FIR filed on the basis of a promise of marriage, saying a mature, legally married woman cannot claim inducement for sexual relations. The Court held the relationship was consensual, and the allegations were made later out of emotional anger.
Chandigarh: The Punjab & Haryana High Court cancelled an FIR filed for rape on the promise of marriage. The Court observed:
“It is inconceivable that a legally married woman could be induced into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.”
The case was decided by Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal, who clearly noted that the woman was already married and fully mature when the alleged relationship took place.
Justice Nagpal explained:
“When a fully mature, married woman consents to sexual intercourse on a promise of marriage and continues to so indulge, it is merely a reckless disregard of the institution of marriage, not an act of inducement by misconception of fact. Section 90 IPC cannot be applied in such a case to fasten criminal liability on the petitioner. Clearly and evidently, prosecutrix was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner for a period of over one year, during which period she remained married to her husband.”
She further added that it is not believable that the woman acted under any misconception. The Court stated:
“Even if the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR and in the subsequent statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are accepted at their face value, it is inconceivable that a legally married woman could be induced into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage. It appears that over a long period of time, prosecutrix engaged in sexual relationship with the petitioner, suffered an emotional set back, when her real sister got engaged with the petitioner and as a backlash got the case registered”
The petition before the Court sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 406, 506, 509 read with Section 34 IPC, along with Sections 406 and 509 IPC. The woman was a practicing advocate, already married, and reportedly had matrimonial disputes with her husband.
She alleged that the accused, who was also a lawyer, entered into physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her and that even her family encouraged the relationship. Later, according to her, her father, mother and brother got her younger sister engaged to the same man, which led to the filing of the case.
After examining the record, the Court drew several important conclusions. First, at the time of the alleged incidents, the woman was around 35 years old, married, and had an eight-year-old child. Second, she was highly educated, having completed her law degree in 2019 and practicing as an advocate. Third, she had made very serious allegations not only against the accused but also against her father, mother, sister, husband and another person, all of which were found false during the investigation.
It was also noted that the petitioner and his father were acting as the prosecutrix’s lawyers in a case she had filed against her husband under Section 498A. In her initial version to the police, she stated that her parents, brother, sister and even the petitioner’s father encouraged her to have sexual relations with the petitioner on the basis of a promise of marriage. She also claimed that the father of the petitioner assured her of marriage when she said she would enter into a physical relationship only if marriage was guaranteed.
However, the FIR did not mention any date or time for the alleged rape under Section 376 IPC. Also, her first complaint did not even claim that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage; this allegation appeared only later in her improved statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., where she claimed that between 21.07.2020 and 12.10.2020, the accused committed rape on the promise of marriage.
The Court found this version unlikely and noted:
“Prosecutrix being an Advocate, was well aware that she had a subsisting valid marriage with her husband . Petitioner too is an Advocate, prosecuting cases against the husband of the prosecutrix. There was thus no question of the petitioner being in a position to induce her into a physical relationship under an assurance of marriage. The first version in the FIR, regarding sexual intercourse by the petitioner is conspicuous by absence of dates and other material particulars.”
The judgement also discussed the Section 506 IPC allegation. It noted that the woman claimed the petitioner threatened her with death and serious consequences when she questioned him about his engagement with her sister.
However, the Court observed:
“The allegation is conspicuous by absence of specific dates, time and place where the alleged threat was extended. The exact words allegedly uttered by the petitioner have not be disclosed, in absence whereof, it is not possible to infer as to whether the petitioner indeed had the intention to criminally intimidate the prosecutrix.”
Based on all these findings, the High Court quashed the FIR filed under Sections 376(2)(n), 506, 180 IPC.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws & Sections Mentioned
| Section / Law | Full Form / Provision | Simple Explanation (Easy Indian English) | How It Was Used In This Case |
| Section 376(2)(n) IPC | Rape – repeated sexual intercourse with same woman | Applies when a man has sexual relations repeatedly without consent or by force | Woman alleged repeated rape on false promise of marriage; Court found it was consensual |
| Section 406 IPC | Criminal Breach of Trust | When someone misuses property, money, or trust given to them | Mentioned in FIR but no material evidence found |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal Intimidation | Threatening someone with injury, harm or death | Woman said accused threatened her when engaged to her sister; Court found no dates/words/details |
| Section 509 IPC | Insulting modesty of a woman | Using words/gestures with intent to insult a woman’s dignity | Included in FIR but Court found allegations vague |
| Section 34 IPC | Common Intention | When multiple people act with shared intention to commit an offence | Added because woman accused family members of encouraging the relationship |
| Section 164 CrPC | Magistrate-recorded statement | Woman’s formal statement before a magistrate | Her improved version added “promise of marriage” only here; not in initial FIR |
| Section 90 IPC | Consent under fear or misconception | Consent is invalid if given under fear or mistaken belief | Court held Section 90 cannot apply to a fully mature married woman |
| Section 498A IPC (referenced) | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Used by wife against husband | Petitioner and his father were her lawyers in this case |
| CrPC – Quashing Petition | Under Section 482 CrPC (implied, not stated) | High Court power to quash false FIRs | Used to quash the present FIR |
| Section 180 IPC (mentioned by Court) | Furnishing false information | Giving false information to a public servant | Court quashed this too as allegations were baseless |
Case Summary
Case Title: SXXXX v. State of Haryana CRM-M-42307-2021
Bench: Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal, Punjab & Haryana High Court
Counsels
For Petitioner:
- Mr. Vaibhav Sharma
- Mr. Harit Narang
For State of Haryana: Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, DAG Haryana
For Complainant / Respondent No.2: Mr. Eeshan Garg
Key Facts / Important Details
- FIR was registered under Sections 376(2)(n), 406, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC, along with 406 and 509 IPC separately.
- Prosecutrix:
- Married woman around 35 years old,
- Mother of an 8-year-old child,
- Lawyer, educated (LLB 2019), practicing advocate.
- Petitioner:
- Lawyer, and even represented the prosecutrix in her 498A case against her husband.
- Prosecutrix alleged:
- Physical relationship on promise of marriage.
- Her father, mother, brother and petitioner’s father encouraged the relationship.
- Later, petitioner got engaged to her younger sister, leading to emotional backlash and FIR.
- Court found:
- Relationship was consensual, extended over one year.
- No dates/time of alleged rape in FIR.
- “Promise of marriage” inserted only in better/improved 164 CrPC statement.
- Allegations against entire family found false during investigation.
- Threat allegations under Section 506 lacked dates, time, and exact words.
- Court held:
- “It is inconceivable that a legally married woman could be induced into a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage.”
- Section 90 IPC cannot apply to a mature, married woman.
- Case appeared to be a result of emotional setback after petitioner’s engagement with her sister.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.