Mere breach of promise to marry after consensual relations between adults does not constitute rape unless promise false from inception; long relationship shows no initial deceit, justifying quashing under inherent powers.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Applicant seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 22.07.2023, the cognizance order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6110 of 2023 ( State vs. Suraj Bora ), arising out of FIR No. 31 of 2023, registered under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Mussoorie, District Dehradun.

2. The case of the State, as disclosed from the FIR, is that the Applicant and Respondent No.2 were acquainted with each other and had been in a relationship. It is alleged that on the assurance of marriage, the Applicant developed physical relations with the complainant over a considerable period. It is further alleged that on 05.03.2023 the Applicant again assured that he would marry her within 45 days, but later refused to do so, which led the complainant to lodge the FIR on 17.05.2023, alleging commission of rape and other allied offences.

3. The FIR itself indicates that both the Applicant and the complainant are major. The relationship between them is admitted to be of long duration. The allegations are founded primarily on the assertion that physical relations were established on the promise of marriage and that subsequently the Applicant declined to marry her.

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that a bare reading of the FIR and the material collected during investigation clearly shows that the Applicant and Respondent No.2 were major and were in a relationship for a considerable period of time. It was argued that the prosecutrix herself admits continuous interaction and physical relationship with the Applicant, which prima facie establishes that the relationship was consensual in nature.

5. It was contended that the entire prosecution case is founded only on the allegation that the Applicant had assured marriage and later declined to marry the complainant. Learned counsel argued that mere breach of a promise to marry does not constitute the offence of rape unless it is shown that the promise was false from the very inception and was given only to obtain consent for physical relations.

6. It was further submitted that neither the FIR nor the charge-sheet discloses any specific material to show that at the inception of the relationship the Applicant never intended to marry the complainant. On the contrary, the long continuation of the relationship itself indicates that this was, at the highest, a failed relationship and not a case of deception.

7. Learned counsel emphasized that continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law and would subject the Applicant to unnecessary harassment. It was, therefore, prayed that this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the charge-sheet, cognizance order and the entire criminal proceedings.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the application and submitted that after due investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet on the basis of the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and other material collected during investigation. It was contended that the prosecutrix has consistently alleged that her consent was obtained