Introduction
In XXX v XXXX, the court ruled that a relationship based on consent does not amount to rape simply because marriage did not follow. The court delivered this judgement under Justice Kirti Singh of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Facts of the Case
A woman and a man met and became friends. They later got engaged. They entered into a consensual physical relationship during courtship. The man’s family then demanded a costly wedding and a new SUV. Differences arose between the two sides. He told her his family opposed the union. The man later called off the wedding. An FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC accused him of rape for having obtained consent by a false promise to marry.
What the Court Says
The court held that consent obtained by a false promise to marry must be proven from the very start. The accused must have had no intention to marry. The court found no proof that the man never intended to marry. They found no evidence that the relationship was non-consensual. The court noted that the couple are educated adults. They had family discussions. Eventually, even performed a roka ceremony. They fixed a date for marriage in November 2024. The marriage did not happen because of irreconcilable differences. The court observed that one party’s disappointment does not convert a consensual relationship into rape. The court stressed that the promise to marry must be in bad faith for the law to treat it as rape.
Implications
This decision clarifies that mere failure of marriage does not make consent invalid. It requires proof of fraudulent intent from the accused from the beginning. Courts must distinguish between broken promises and criminal deception. This protects individuals from misuse of rape laws in relationships gone sour. The judgement may influence how future cases of “rape on false promise” are handled. It may discourage filing offences without clear evidence of deceit.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed the FIR. The court found that the alleged promise to marry lacked proof of bad faith. The relationship had been consensual from the start. The wife’s disappointment did not justify criminal proceedings. The judgement reinforces that law must guard against abuse. It mandates evidence when consent is alleged to have been deceitfully obtained.
