{"id":7205,"date":"2026-04-28T13:51:29","date_gmt":"2026-04-28T08:21:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=7205"},"modified":"2026-04-28T13:35:21","modified_gmt":"2026-04-28T08:05:21","slug":"rape-case-quashed-false-promise-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/rape-case-quashed-false-promise-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Consensual Relationship With Married Woman Not Rape: Punjab & Haryana High Court Finds No False Promise From Inception, Quashes Rape Case Against Man"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Can a legally married woman allege rape after months of consensual relations based on promise of marriage?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Punjab & Haryana High Court held that without proof of false promise from the start, consent remains valid and the case was quashed.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

CHANDIGARH: <\/em>The Punjab & Haryana High Court<\/strong>, through Justice N.S. Shekhawat<\/strong>, examined a case where a man was accused of rape <\/a>on the allegation that he had physical relations with a woman on the false promise of marriage<\/strong>. After closely examining the facts, the Court found major inconsistencies<\/strong> in the complaint and held that the criminal case could not continue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court noted that the woman was already legally married<\/strong> and had not obtained divorce from her husband <\/strong>during the period of the alleged relationship. In such circumstances, the claim that she was made to believe a valid marriage would take place was found doubtful. The relationship between both sides continued for several months<\/strong>, showing that it was not an isolated incident but a continuing consensual relationship<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While discussing the meaning of consent, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra<\/em><\/strong> and observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Consent is also stated to be an act of reason coupled with deliberation. It denotes an active will in mind of a person to permit the doing of the act complained of.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court also referred to Kaini Rajan v. State of Kerala<\/em><\/strong>, where the Supreme Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“Consent, for the purpose of Section 375, requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance of the moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The High Court further clarified that every failed promise of marriage does not amount to rape. It relied on the Supreme Court<\/a> judgment in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh<\/em><\/strong>, which held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“If it is established and proved that from the inception the accused who gave the promise to the prosecutrix to marry, did not have any intention to marry… such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court also cited Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra<\/em><\/strong>, where the Supreme Court explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The ‘consent’ of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act… 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.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Applying these legal principles, the Punjab & Haryana High Court found that the complainant was a married and mature woman<\/strong> who fully understood the nature and consequences of her actions. There was no evidence to show that the accused had made a false promise of marriage from the beginning. <\/strong>The long duration of the relationship also weakened the allegation that consent was obtained through deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court then relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Uday v. State of Karnataka<\/em><\/strong>, where it was held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“The consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The High Court also repeated the legal caution given in the same judgment, stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

“There is no straitjacket formula for determining whether consent was given under a misconception of fact.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

After considering the complete record, the Court concluded that the allegations did not make out an offence of rape under law. The complaint lacked specific details, and the conduct of the parties clearly showed a consensual relationship<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Accordingly, the Punjab & Haryana High Court used its powers under Section 482 CrPC<\/strong> and quashed the complaint<\/strong>, the summoning order, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner, holding that continuation of the case would be an abuse of the process of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Section \/ Law<\/strong><\/td>Purpose<\/strong><\/td>How Applied  in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
Section 482 CrPC<\/strong><\/td>Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice<\/td>Petition filed for quashing criminal complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 376 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Punishment for rape<\/td>Main allegation against petitioner<\/td><\/tr>
Section 375 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Defines rape and meaning of consent<\/td>Court examined whether consent was valid<\/td><\/tr>
Section 313 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Causing miscarriage without woman\u2019s consent<\/td>Allegation of forced abortion through medicines<\/td><\/tr>
Section 323 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Voluntarily causing hurt<\/td>Included in complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 452 IPC<\/strong><\/td>House trespass after preparation for hurt\/assault<\/td>Included in complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 504 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Intentional insult provoking breach of peace<\/td>Included in complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Criminal intimidation<\/td>Alleged threats by accused persons<\/td><\/tr>
Section 217 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Public servant disobeying law to save person from punishment<\/td>Included in complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 218 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Public servant preparing incorrect record to save person<\/td>Included in complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 148 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Rioting with deadly weapon<\/td>Included in complaint<\/td><\/tr>
Section 149 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Unlawful assembly with common object<\/td>Used where multiple accused named<\/td><\/tr>
Section 90 IPC<\/strong><\/td>Consent given under fear or misconception not valid consent<\/td>Central issue in false promise cases<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n