A consensual relationship between adults, even if based on a promise to marry, does not constitute rape without evidence of coercion or deceit.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the FIR in connection with Mihijam P.S. Case No.48 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 493 of the Indian Penal Code and the said case is still pending before Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamtara.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner promised to marry the informant after contacting her over phone and on the promise of marriage on 23.06.2022, established physical relation with the informant. On 02.11.2022, the petitioner solemnized marriage with the informant in her house and after that, established physical relationship with her and took her to several places and established physical relationship but he is not taking the informant to his house. The parents of the petitioner also promised that they will get solemnized court marriage of the petitioner and the informant and obtained her signature but now the petitioner is refusing to marry the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Matiyas Sanga vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.2191 of 2025 dated 19.08.2025 and submits that in that case, this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 18 SCC 517 , in which case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the F.I.R. and proceedings arising therefrom, keeping in view the following facts of that case:-

(i) relationship between the accused and victim was consensual in nature;

(ii) parties were in relationship for a period of one and a half years;

(iii) subsequently, the accused person expressed disinclination to marry the victim.

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the fact of this case is exactly same as that of the case of Sonu @ Subash Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in the case of Matiyas Sanga vs. The State of Jharkhand (supra), this Court also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prashant Vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2024 INSC 879, in para-18 of which, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is inconceivable that the complainant would continue to meet the accused person or maintain a prolonged association or physical relationship with him in the absence of any voluntary consent on her part and it is submitted that in view of the fact that both the petitioner and the victim of this case are major persons, at best, it is a case of consensual sexual relationship between the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Maheshwar Tigga vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2020 SC 4535 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has reiterated the settled principle of law that under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, a consent given under a misconception of fact is no consent in the eyes of law but the misconception of fact has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a period of four years; when such consent is given for a considerable period of time continuously, the consent of the prosecutrix wa