Back
7-Year Not Rape Despite Refusal To Marry:
The has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape under , ruling that a physical relationship lasting over seven years between two consenting adults cannot be retroactively classified as rape simply because the man later refused to marry.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over a single-judge bench, allowed the petition filed by Lalu Mahtha @ Lalu Mahta, setting aside the FIR and order passed by the , in Mahila (Sadar) P.S. Case No.12 of 2023.
The Allegations: A Relationship Born at a Wedding
The case traces back to when the petitioner and the informant met at a friend's marriage ceremony. They exchanged mobile numbers, and a romantic relationship blossomed. According to the FIR, the petitioner would meet the woman near Giridih Railway Station and, by promising to marry her, established a physical relationship. The relationship continued for over seven years, with the petitioner allegedly taking the informant to a hotel in Ranchi in , where they again engaged in physical intimacy.
The informant claimed that after exploiting her for years, the petitioner severed ties on , switching off his mobile phone. When she contacted his father, both the petitioner and his family members allegedly abused her and refused to solemnize the marriage. Based on her written complaint, the police registered the FIR and, after investigation, submitted a . The magistrate took of the offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which addresses by a .
Arguments: Consent vs. False Promise
Appearing for the petitioner, argued that the informant was a major when the relationship began and that it continued for over seven years without protest. He relied heavily on the 's judgment in
Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra
(2024), where the apex court observed that
"the longer the duration of the physical relationship between the partners without protest and insistence by the female partner for marriage would be indicative of a
rather than a relationship based on
."
The State, represented by , opposed the petition, contending that the case disclosed sufficient grounds for prosecution.
Legal Analysis: No Deception at Inception
The High Court carefully examined whether the was false from the very beginning. It turned to the 's landmark ruling in Pramod Suryabhan Pawan vs. State of Maharashtra (2019), which established a critical distinction: a mere does not amount to a false promise; rather, the maker of the promise must have had no intention of honouring it at the time it was made.
Justice Choudhary noted that the FIR contained no specific allegation that the petitioner lacked the intention to marry the informant when he first made the promise.
"The undisputed fact remains that the physical relationship between the petitioner and the informant continued for over seven years without any protest by the informant,"
the court observed.
Key Observations
"There is no specific allegation against petitioner that the petitioner had no intention to marry the informant-victim at the time of establishing physical relationship with the victim."— Paragraph 10 of the judgment
"Where the is false and the intention of the maker at the time of making the promise itself was not to abide by it but to deceive the woman to convince her to engage in sexual relations, there is a ' ' that vitiates the woman's 'consent'."— Paragraph 10, citing Pramod Suryabhan Pawan
"This Court has no hesitation in holding that 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 ."— Paragraph 12
The Final Decision
Finding that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an , the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceeding, including the FIR and the order dated . The petition was allowed, and all proceedings against Lalu Mahtha were set aside.
The judgment reinforces the principle that a , no matter how long it lasts, cannot be converted into a criminal offence simply because one party later changes their mind about marriage. It underscores the importance of examining the intent behind a at its inception, not in hindsight.
