Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
Ankit Raj – Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi – Respondent
Holding: FIR under Section 376 IPC quashed as no prima facie case of rape made out; relationship between parties was consensual, with evidence of actual marriage negating claim of false promise from inception. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Key Facts: - Complainant alleged petitioner induced sexual relations via false marriage promise starting from meetings in 2023, continued through 2024, including during her pregnancy; claimed petitioner married another woman for dowry.[2] - Petitioner claimed valid Arya Samaj marriage on 21.01.2024 (certificate verified by IO), kept secret at complainant's insistence for her UPSC prep; later married second woman under family pressure.[5][6][14][16] - Parties travelled together multiple times (e.g., Varanasi, Ujjain, Delhi hotels), maintained relations post-petitioner's second marriage; complainant initially called him "husband" in CAW Cell complaint.[11][12][15][16][22]
Issues: - Whether consent vitiated by false promise of marriage requiring proof of deceptive intent from outset.[10][18] - Whether prolonged voluntary relations and marriage evidence negated rape allegations.[13][21][24]
Court's Findings & Ratio: - Consent must be assessed based on facts; mere relationship failure or subsequent breach insufficient for rape if no initial mala fide intent proven – here, marriage ceremony and ongoing relations showed intent and consensuality.[12][13][14][18][19][21][24] - Complainant, an adult educated woman, voluntarily continued relations even after learning of second marriage, undermining deception claim.[13][22][24][27] - Courts must scrutinize to prevent misuse of Section 376 IPC in consensual adult relationships turned sour; cannot arbitrate morality or convert civil disputes to criminal.[26][27][28][29] - Scope limited to FIR ingredients; other issues (e.g., marriage validity, second marriage) for separate civil remedies.[23][25]
Result: FIR No. 447/2024 (P.S. Nabi Karim) and proceedings quashed u/s 482 CrPC.[30][31][32]
Relevant Sections: IPC S.376, S.506; BNS S.69, S.351(3); BNSS S.183; CrPC S.482.[judgement_act_referred]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding complaint validity and intention. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of consent and promise in relationships. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. judicial scrutiny limitations and moral implications. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. quashing of fir and dismissal of case. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Index to the Judgment
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT
On Behalf of the Petitioner
On Behalf of the State & the Complainant
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
Gravamen of Allegations and Factual Matrix
Legal Position on Consent and False Promise of Marriage
Assessment of Allegations in Light of Settled Legal Principles
Proliferation of FIRs under Section 376 of IPC on Broken Relationships
Limits of Judicial Scrutiny: Courts Not Arbiters of Morality
The Decision
1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, is seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 447/2024, registered on 21.11.2024 at Police Station Nabi Karim (North), Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter "IPC‟].
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The br
The court ruled that allegations of rape based on false promises of marriage require clear evidence of deceptive intent, which was absent here as the relationship was fundamentally consensual.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
Consent in consensual relationships invalidates allegations of rape; merely non-fulfilling marriage promises does not constitute a crime when prior consent for sexual interactions is established.
(1) Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Mere fact that parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case.(2) Rape – Offe....
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
Consent given under a misconception of fact does not constitute valid consent for rape; a distinction exists between a false promise of marriage and a breach of promise.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of voluntary consent and the absence of deceit or false promises in determining the nature of a relationship and distinguishing b....
The promise to marry must be false from inception to constitute an offence under section 376 IPC; a consensual relationship over time does not amount to rape.
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
