A sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage does not constitute rape without evidence of pre-existing deceptive intent. Additionally, statutory offences like abetment of suicide and involuntary miscarriage require proof of an actual suicide or lack of consent, respectively, to be legally sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

I.A. No. 7566 of 2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition.

3. Since, hearing of this criminal miscellaneous petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application is disposed of being infructuous.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. being Chaibasa Mahila P.S. Case No. 16 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 493, 376(2)(n), 312 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge sheet has not yet been submitted.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner established physical relationship with the victim on the promise of marriage and the relationship continued for four years. In the meanwhile, the informant became pregnant but medicine was administered to her for miscarriage which resulted in miscarriage but ultimately the petitioner did not marry the informant and abetted her to commit suicide.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kunal Chatterjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1703 that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken note of the fact that the said Court in several cases has held that promise to marriage and the subsequent physical relationship between the two with consent would not amount to rape inter-alia in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 and in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108. It is next submitted that this case also, is a case of consensual sexual relationship between two adult persons and there is no allegation that the miscarriage was done without the consent of the victim. Hence, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 1667, para -18 of which reads as under:-

“18. There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and in a case where there is a promise of marriage, the Court must very carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim, or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to this effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls in the ambit of cheating or deception.”

And submits that in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner had no intention to marry at any time, particularly at the time of promising to marry the victim, even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is next submitted that the parties have also compromised their dispute and filed an interlocutory application no. 15433 of 2025, which is supported by the victim on oath, wherein the victim has categorically mentioned that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was a consensual relationship. Therefore, it is submitted that continuation of this criminal p