The Jharkhand High Court has quashed a criminal proceeding arising from an allegation of sexual exploitation on the promise of marriage, holding that the allegations, even if accepted in full, disclosed a consensual physical relationship between two adults.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary passed the order in a petition seeking cancellation of the FIR and the cognizance order issued by the trial court.
Background of the Case
According to the allegations recorded in the judgment, the parties met at a marriage ceremony in 2016 and exchanged mobile numbers. Their relationship subsequently developed, and the woman alleged that the petitioner maintained a physical relationship with her after promising to marry her.
The allegations stated that the relationship continued for more than seven years. The woman further alleged that when she insisted on marriage, she was repeatedly put off and that the relationship eventually ended. An FIR was registered in 2023, following which the police completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih thereafter took cognizance under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceeding. His counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, which observed that a long physical relationship without protest or insistence on marriage may indicate a consensual relationship rather than one based on a false promise of marriage.
Court's Observation
The High Court examined whether the promise of marriage could, on the allegations presented, amount to a false promise that had invalidated the woman's consent.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, explaining that a promise to marry becomes a false promise when the person making it had no intention of fulfilling it from the very beginning. A later failure to keep a promise, by itself, does not establish such a false promise.
The Court noted that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner lacked an intention to marry the woman when the physical relationship began.
“There is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner did not have any intention to marry the informant since the inception when he promised to marry the informant-victim.”
The Court also considered the fact that the relationship had continued for more than seven years without protest, while the FIR was ultimately lodged after the alleged refusal by the petitioner and his family to proceed with the marriage.
Decision
The High Court held that, even if the allegations were taken to be true in their entirety, they were insufficient to constitute the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
“The entire allegations made by the informant, even if 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.”
Finding that continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of law, the Court quashed the FIR, the cognizance order dated August 16, 2024, and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner.
The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed.
