Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Ankit Raj - Petitioner
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi And Others - Respondents
Crl.M.C. 3061 of 2025 & Crl.M.A. 13572 of 2025
Decided on : 03-09-2025
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 brief facts of the case are that a complaint was received at P.S. Nabi Karim from Ms. "SP‟, aged 24 years, a resident of Bihar. In her complaint, she alleged that she had been subjected to severe exploitation, physical, emotional and sexual harassment by the petitioner/accused Ankit Raj, under the false pretext of marriage, coupled with fraud and cheating. It was stated that the complainant had first met the petitioner on 18.01.2023 at a hotel in Patna in the presence of their respective families. At the very first meeting, a dowry demand of Rs. 1 crore had been raised. Thereafter, the petitioner had begun contacting the complainant frequently, portraying himself as genuine and supportive of her academic pursuits, while assuring her repeatedly of marriage. These assurances had created a foundation of trust which he later exploited. Though the complainant had initially resisted his advances, the petitioner had manipulated her emotionally and persuaded her by reiterating his promise of marriage. It was alleged that on 08-09.07.2023, during a trip to Varanasi, the complainant and the petitioner had stayed in a hotel near Kedar Ghat, where he had established physical relations with her on the false assurance of marriage. Thereafter also, he had taken her to several places and continued sexual relations with her under the same pretext. The complainant had trusted him implicitly, but subsequently, the petitioner had started avoiding her calls and meetings. Later, she had come to know that he had married another woman Ms. "X‟, in April 2024, allegedly in consideration of dowry of Rs. 60 lakhs, without disclosing the same to her family. When confronted, the petitioner had claimed that his marriage to Ms. "X‟ was against his will and had continued to manipulate the complainant emotionally, even during her pregnancy. On 21.05.2024, he had come to Delhi, met the complainant in a hotel at Paharganj, and again established physical relations with her, assuring her that he would leave his wife and take responsibility for her and their unborn child. He had even suggested backdating a marriage certificate to January 2024 to lend legitimacy to their relationship. Further, from 04.08.2024 to 10.08.2024, the petitioner and the complainant had stayed at a hotel in Model Town, Delhi, where he had again maintained continuous sexual relations with her under the pretext of marriage. It was also alleged that he had threatened her and her family with dire consequences, provoked her to commit suicide, and subjected her to mental harassment. Subsequently, mediation proceedings had taken place at the Women‟s Cell, Sabzi Mandi, during which the petitioner, in his written statement, had denied even knowing the complainant. Based on these allegations, the present FIR for offence under
AI
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
