False Rape Case Filed By Ex-Girlfriend After 7-Year Consensual Relationship Over Refusal To Marry: Jharkhand High Court Quashes Case Against Man

Can a consensual relationship between two adults continuing for more than seven years become rape merely because the marriage did not happen? The Jharkhand High Court found no allegation that the man had planned to deceive the woman from the beginning and quashed the entire criminal case.

RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a rape case based on an alleged false promise of marriage against a man after finding that the physical relationship between the parties had continued for more than seven years and the allegations, even if accepted completely, disclosed at most a consensual physical relationship between two adults.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary allowed the petition filed by the accused, Lalu Mahtha @ Lalu Mahta, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court quashed the FIR, criminal proceedings and the cognisance order dated August 16, 2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, for the offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the allegations, the man and the informant met at her friend's marriage ceremony in 2016. They exchanged mobile numbers and developed a relationship. It was alleged that he met her near Giridih Railway Station and began a physical relationship after promising marriage.

The relationship continued for years. The woman alleged that on December 20, 2022, the petitioner took her to Ranchi and kept her in a hotel on December 21, where they again established a physical relationship.

She further alleged that after sexually exploiting her for more than seven years, the petitioner ended the relationship and switched off his mobile phone on April 2, 2023. When she contacted his father, the petitioner and his family members allegedly abused her and refused the proposed marriage.

On her written complaint, Giridih Mahila (Sadar) Police Station registered Case No. 12 of 2023. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of the offence.

Before the High Court, the man's counsel argued that the woman was already a major when the relationship started in 2016 and that their physical relationship continued for more than seven years. It was argued that the FIR was filed after the petitioner and his family allegedly refused the marriage, indicating that the relationship between the two adults had been consensual.

The petitioner's counsel relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra & Another, where the Supreme Court observed:

“34. In our opinion, the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a consensual relationship rather than a relationship based on false promise of marriage by the male partner and thus, based on misconception of fact.”

The High Court then examined whether the allegations showed that the promise of marriage was false from the very beginning.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Suryabhan Pawan v. State of Maharashtra & Another, the Court recorded the legal distinction between a false promise and a later breach of a promise:

“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". On the other hand, a breach of promise cannot be a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker of the promise should have had no intention of upholding his word at the time of giving it."

Applying this principle, the High Court found that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner had no intention to marry the woman when the relationship began.

The Court also noted that the physical relationship continued for more than seven years without protest and that the FIR followed the alleged refusal by the petitioner and his family to solemnise the marriage.

The High Court ultimately held:

“Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the entire allegations made by the informant, even if they 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.”

The Court held that continuing the criminal prosecution in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It therefore quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR and the cognisance order, against the petitioner.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Seven years of a consensual relationship cannot be rewritten as rape just because the marriage did not happen.
• A relationship ending badly does not automatically turn a broken promise into a criminal offence.
• The Court found no specific allegation that the man had planned from day one to deceive her in the name of marriage.
• The rape case came only after the man and his family allegedly refused the marriage — and that timing mattered.
• A man was made to face a serious rape prosecution over a long adult relationship until the High Court finally called the continuation of the case an abuse of process and quashed it.