The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a failed consensual relationship cannot be turned into a criminal rape case to compel marriage. The Court quashed the FIR, calling the prosecution an abuse of law when no false promise existed at the start.
CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a rape case lodged against an Army officer, where the allegation was that he had entered into a physical relationship with a woman on the false assurance of marriage.
While hearing the matter, Justice Alok Jain clearly stated that when a relationship is consensual and later ends because of incompatibility, criminal law cannot be used as a pressure tactic to force the relationship to continue.
The Court explained the legal position by observing:
“It is apposite to mention here that human relationships are dynamic and may change with time. A consensual relationship by itself cannot give rise to criminal liability under Section 376 IPC unless statutory ingredients necessary to constitute the said offence are clearly made out. Merely because consensual relationship does not culminate into marriage due to incompatibility, cannot be forcibly converted into life long relationship.”
The case came before the High Court through a petition filed by an Army Captain, who sought quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Pathankot police in 2020. The woman had alleged that the officer had destroyed her life and entered into a sexual relationship with her by false promise of marriage.
In response, the officer stated that the relationship was mutual and consensual, and that both families were aware of it. He pointed out that the relationship had even progressed to a roka ceremony. However, marriage did not take place due to serious differences in temperament.
He also highlighted that his posting in sensitive areas led to communication gaps, further weakening the relationship. According to him, matters escalated when the woman allegedly began threatening to commit suicide.
The complainant maintained that she was a “simple educated girl” who could not understand the accused’s real intentions. The State also opposed the plea for quashing, arguing that the officer had repeatedly established physical relations by misleading her with affectionate words and a false promise of marriage.
After carefully considering the case record and submissions, the High Court concluded that the basic legal requirements to attract the offence of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code were not satisfied.
The Court made a specific observation, stating:
“The complainant is an educated woman who has fully aware, at all the times that while entering into physical relations with the petitioner that they were not married. A merely consensual relationship even if it subsequently breaks down cannot be termed as a rape, particularly when there is neither any allegations of force nor of any misrepresentation or false promise at the inception by the petitioner much less any such fact narrated by the complainant.”
By emphasizing consent, awareness, and absence of deception at the beginning of the relationship, the Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be invoked simply because a personal relationship failed to result in marriage.
The Court also took note of the fact that the roka ceremony was performed even after a complaint had already been made by the woman, indicating that the officer had made genuine efforts to save the relationship.
The Court further recorded:
“However, when the things went out of hand and the complainant repeatedly started threatening the petitioner with dire consequences, including allegations that the petitioner was provoking her to commit suicide, the petitioner withdrew from the relationship and categorically informed the complainant that he could not get married to her.”
The High Court observed that once irreconcilable differences arose, the complainant chose to pressure the officer by filing repeated complaints and eventually lodging the FIR.
The Court stated:
“Therefore, from the perusal of the record, it does not appear that the initial promise to marry allegedly made by petitioner was false to begin with. Perusal of FIR further itself suggests that the alleged promise to marry could not be fulfilled by petitioner due to intervening circumstances consequently the relationship ended and the present FIR came to be registered.”
In conclusion, the High Court held that allowing the criminal trial to continue would amount to misuse of the legal process. It clearly ruled that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to punish one party simply because a consensual relationship failed.
The Court finally concluded,
“The present FIR seems to be an abuse of process of law, as it is apparent that both the parties were major and in a consensual relationship and the subsequent fall out of the relationship was only on account of the temperament differences,” and accordingly quashed the FIR.
This judgment reinforces an important legal principle that consent, autonomy, and factual circumstances must be respected, and that rape laws cannot be misused to force marriage or settle personal relationship failures through criminal prosecution.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| IPC Section 376 | Applies only when sexual act is without consent or obtained by force, fraud, or deception | Court held that consensual physical relationship without force or deception does not amount to rape |
| IPC (General Principles) | Willing and conscious agreement to engage in a sexual act | Court found that the woman was educated, aware, and consenting at all times |
| CrPC Section 482 | Allows High Court to stop misuse of criminal law and prevent injustice | Used to quash the FIR as continuation of trial would be abuse of process |
| Criminal Law Principle | When legal machinery is used to harass or pressure rather than seek justice | Court ruled that filing rape FIR after relationship failure amounted to misuse |
Case Details
- Case Title: Army Captain v. State of Punjab & Another
- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
- Bench: Justice Alok Jain
- Police Station: Pathankot, Punjab
- Nature of Petition: Petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR
- Allegations: Rape on the false promise of marriage
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner (Army Officer): Raman B Garg, Mayank Garg, Navdeep Singh
- For the State of Punjab: Amandeep Singh Samra, Additional Advocate General
- For Complainant: Tanheer Singh
Key Takeaways
- A failed consensual relationship cannot be criminalised as rape merely because marriage did not happen.
- Promise of marriage becomes a crime only if it was false from the very beginning, not because circumstances changed later.
- Adult, educated women exercising consent cannot later rewrite consent as absence of consent to invoke Section 376 IPC.
- Criminal law cannot be used to pressure men into marriage or to punish them for relationship breakdowns.
- Courts are increasingly recognising misuse of rape laws and intervening to stop abuse of the legal process against men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
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.