CHANDIGARH<\/em>: The Punjab and Haryana High Court<\/a><\/strong> has quashed a rape<\/a> case against a man<\/strong> and held that a long relationship between two mature adults cannot be treated as rape only because marriage did not happen later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice N.S. Shekhawat<\/strong> made important observations while hearing the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Even, before taking divorce from other person, the respondent No.2 went to Bali with the petitioner from 09.10.2022 to 17.10.2022. Even, both of them had visited various places and stayed together in the same hotel at different hill stations. Apart from that, she also visited Egypt from 16.09.2023 to 27.09.2023 with the present petitioner and admittedly, she had physical relations with the present petitioner. However, she did not lodge the F.I.R for several months, even though she is highly educated lady and is working in multinational company.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The man told the Court that both were colleagues in the same company and were in a mutual relationship. He said the woman was already married when the relationship started and her divorce case was completed only in October 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n His side also argued that both of them travelled together willingly to places like Kasauli, Bali, Mussoorie and Egypt. According to the defence, this clearly showed a voluntary and close relationship between two adults.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that the woman was educated, mature and had been living separately from her husband since 2016. The Court also noted that when the relationship started in 2022, she was still legally married.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Because of this, the Court found it \u201chighly improbable\u201d<\/strong> that any promise of marriage was the reason for starting the relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further observed that both parties continued meeting, travelling and staying together for a long time, which pointed towards a consensual relationship and not one created through cheating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While explaining the law, the Court said consent under Section 375 IPC must involve an \u201cactive and reasoned deliberation\u201d<\/strong> by the person giving consent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments including Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana,<\/em> and Vinod Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court said that for consent to become invalid under Section 90 IPC, a promise to marry must be false from the very beginning and made only to obtain a physical relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this case, the Court found no evidence that the man made any false promise from the start. Instead, the facts showed a relationship based on mutual liking and companionship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also considered the delay in filing the FIR despite the complainant being an educated working professional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court held that offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC were not made out and continuing the criminal case would be misuse of legal process<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the FIR, chargesheet and all related proceedings were quashed against the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND SECTIONS MENTIONED IN THIS CASE<\/h3>\n\n\n\n