The court ruled that failure to marry after a consensual relationship does not invalidate consent, and the mere disappointment in relationships cannot lead to criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings in Bolangir Town PS Case No. 191 of 2021 (corresponding to OR Case No. 426 of 2021) registered in the Court of the learned SDJM, Bolangir. The charges include offenses under Sections 376 (2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 294, 506, and 34 of the IPC .

I. FACTS AS PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER:

2. Opp. Party No. 2 (the prosecutrix) filed a written complaint alleging that she met the Petitioner in 2012 while both were pursuing a computer course in Sambalpur. They developed a close friendship that eventually led the Petitioner to fall in love with her. Admittedly, their families were aware of their relationship.

3. After the Petitioner secured a job as a Sub-Inspector of Police, he maintained a physical relationship with her, allegedly, under the false promise of marriage. She claimed that the relationship was against her will, and when she complained to the Petitioner’s family, they ignored her.

4. She further alleged that she was tortured by the Petitioner and his family. Furthermore, she attempted suicide and was treated at Titilagarh Government Hospital.

5. In 2019, she stayed with the Petitioner in Bhubaneswar and Titilagarh, where they continued their physical relationship. She alleged that the Petitioner failed to register their marriage as promised and administered “unwanted 72” contraceptive pills to prevent her pregnancy.

6. Interestingly, in 2023, the prosecutrix filed a Civil Proceeding (CP No. 169 of 2023) in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur, seeking a declaration that she is the legally married wife of the Petitioner and also an injunction to prevent him from marrying anyone else.

7. In the civil suit, she claimed that, on 03.02.2021, she and the Petitioner had solemnized their marriage at Samaleswari Temple, Sambalpur, and exchanged garlands, vermilion, and mangalsutra. She also alleged that they applied for marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act, but the Petitioner failed to appear for the registration on 18.03.2021.

8. After the FIR was registered, the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C., and she was medically examined.

9. The Petitioner highlights that the prosecutrix’s allegations in the FIR and the Civil Proceeding are inconsistent. In the FIR, she did not mention the marriage at Samaleswari Temple, but in the civil suit, she claimed to be the Petitioner’s legally married wife.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

10. The Petitioner contends that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual. The prosecutrix is a grown-up, mature, and intelligent woman who understood the consequences of her actions. She voluntarily maintained the relationship despite alleged objections from the Petitioner’s family.

11. The Petitioner argues that the prosecutrix’s claim of a false promise o marriage is baseless. The relationship was based on mutual consent, and the prosecutrix continued the relationship even after being allegedly tortured by the Petitioner’s family.

12. The prosecutrix’s allegations in the FIR and the Civil Proceeding are contradictory. In the FIR, she did not menti