The Orissa High Court has quashed rape charges against a man accused of engaging in a long-term consensual relationship under the pretext of marriage. The court held that while the failure of love may be painful, it does not amount to a crime under the law.
Case Background
The complainant alleged that she and the petitioner met in 2012 while pursuing a computer course in Sambalpur. Over time, their friendship blossomed into a romantic relationship. According to the complainant, the petitioner engaged in a physical relationship with her under a false promise of marriage, which lasted for nearly nine years.
Read Also:- Orissa HC Criticizes Special Court for Misclassifying Adult Accused as Juvenile in POCSO Case
She further claimed that the petitioner failed to register their marriage as promised, administered contraceptive pills to prevent pregnancy, and subjected her to mental and emotional distress. In 2023, she filed a civil suit in the Family Court of Sambalpur, seeking a declaration that she was legally married to the petitioner and demanding an injunction to prevent him from marrying someone else.
However, contradictions arose when, in her civil suit, she stated that she was already married to the petitioner, whereas in the criminal complaint, she alleged that the petitioner had deceived her by not fulfilling his promise to marry.
Read Also:- Patna High Court Emphasizes Family Over Institutionalization for Juveniles in Conflict with Law
The Orissa High Court carefully examined the allegations and found the relationship to be consensual. The key legal issue was whether the petitioner’s failure to marry the complainant invalidated her consent under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or if the case was merely a failed personal relationship.
Key Observations by the Court:
"The law does not extend its protection to every broken promise nor does it impose criminality upon every failed relationship. The failure of love is not a crime, nor does the law transform disappointment into deception."
The court also referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra, which held that to establish rape under a false promise of marriage, two key factors must be met:
- The promise must have been false at the time it was made.
- The promise must have directly influenced the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.
In this case, the court noted that the complainant was a consenting adult, and their relationship lasted nearly a decade, which indicated that it was voluntary.
"The intervention of the court in this case was necessary to prevent the criminal justice system from being misused as a tool of vengeance. Quashing the criminal proceedings is essential to maintain the integrity of the law and prevent it from being used to litigate personal disappointments."
The court referenced multiple judgments, including:
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, which emphasized that consent should be an active and informed decision.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Declares Prolonged Undertrial Detention Over 6 Years Violates Right to Speedy Trial
G. Achyut Kumar v. State of Odisha, where Justice Panigrahi himself had questioned the automatic extension of Section 90 of IPC (consent given under misconception) to determine the effect of consent under Section 375 IPC.
The Orissa High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. It reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a means to settle personal grievances stemming from failed relationships
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Munda v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case No: CRLMC No. 4485 of 2024
Date of Judgment: February 14, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. K. A. Guru, Advocate for the Prosecutrix
