Introduction
The Punjab & Haryana High Court quashed an FIR accusing a man of rape on the false pretext of marriage. The court held that a married, fully grown woman who agrees to a sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage is not being “induced” in the legal sense under Section 90 of the IPC. Rather, her conduct reflects a disregard for the institution of marriage. The court rejected the idea that criminal liability can arise simply because she consented to sex on the basis of a promise.
What Were the Facts of the Case?
In the case before the court, the complainant woman was legally married and had a child. She was also a practising legal professional. She alleged that the man, also a legal professional, had entered into a sexual relationship with her under the promise that he would marry her. According to her, her family, including her parents and siblings, encouraged the relationship by supporting his assurances of marriage. But she later claimed that he betrayed her, because her younger sister was eventually engaged to him.
During police investigation and in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she said the promise of marriage was the reason for her consent. She told the court that between July and October of the relevant year, he had sexual relations with her on that basis. But the FIR she lodged did not include precise dates or times for the alleged instances of rape.
The court also noted contradictions in her claims: she accused her own family of encouraging the relationship, and yet she also claimed emotional distress when things did not go as she expected. The man was her legal counsel in a separate matrimonial dispute she had with her husband, which added a complex professional context to their personal interactions.
What Did the Court Observe?
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal made several critical observations in her judgment. First, she emphasized the woman’s maturity and awareness: she was not a naïve or uneducated person. The court pointed out that she fully understood the “consequences of immoral acts” and cannot easily be said to have acted under a “misconception of fact.” Her consent was voluntary and informed.
The judge held that labeling her relationship as rape simply because the promise of marriage was unfulfilled would stretch Section 90 of the IPC beyond its intended meaning. She said that when a mature married woman consents to sex on the promise of marriage and continues the relationship, it shows “reckless disregard of the institution of marriage,” not inducement by false promise. According to the court, there was no evidence that he had tricked or deceived her in a way that qualifies as inducement under criminal law.
Even if the allegations in her statements are accepted, the court ruled that it is “inconceivable” for a legally married woman to be induced into sex by a false marriage promise. The court emphasized that her continuing a relationship for over a year undermines the idea that she was misled.
The High Court also found procedural weaknesses in the FIR: the complaint lacked specific dates, and no clear evidence showed that the man had made a firm commitment to marry her. The court said that the threat she alleged under Section 506 IPC was vague, and the statements lacked essential particulars required to sustain a criminal intimidation charge.
What Are the Implications of This Judgment?
This judgment has important legal and social implications. Legally, it clarifies that Section 90 IPC — dealing with consent obtained by misconception of fact — should not be used to criminalize consensual sexual relationships merely because one party claims a failed promise to marry. The court’s interpretation places a clear limit on when “misconception of fact” applies in cases involving married women.
Socially, the decision underscores that intimacy outside marriage, even when based on a promise of marriage, cannot always be transformed into a rape case. The court’s language, calling the conduct “promiscuity” and “immorality”, highlights the moral dimension it attributes to such consensual relationships. But it also warns against misusing the criminal law to settle personal or emotional grievances.
For future cases, this ruling may serve as a precedent to prevent criminal prosecution in similar situations, especially where the woman is mature, legally married, and has had a long-term consensual relationship. The judgment could deter filing of FIRs in cases where personal bitterness, failed commitments, or family pressure, rather than true coercion or deceit, lie at the heart of the conflict.
