Kartik Patel vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528; Indian Penal Code - Sections 354, 376(2)(N) and 90; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) - Quashing of FIR - Consensual relationship - False promise of marriage - Distinction between breach of promise and false promise - Consent under Section 90 IPC is not vitiated if the promise to marry was not the sole basis for consent at the inception and the relationship was long-term and consensual (Paras 11, 12).

(B) Criminal Jurisdiction - Exercise of inherent powers to quash FIR - Where allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or are inherently improbable, the court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law (Para 13).

(C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - If the primary allegation of sexual intercourse without consent (rape) is not established due to lack of misconception of fact, the consequential offences under this Act are also not made out (Para 15).

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on multiple occasions over a period of two years based on a false promise of marriage. The parties had been acquainted since 2021 and maintained a frequent relationship. The complainant alleged that the petitioner deceived her regarding his identity and later refused to marry her, leading her to file an FIR after a delay of approximately three and a half months from the date of the last incident.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complainant's conduct, specifically sustaining the relationship for two years and voluntarily visiting hotels with the petitioner, indicates a consensual relationship. There was no evidence of coercion, threat, or inducement at the inception of the relationship. The delay in filing the FIR was unexplained, and the narrative did not support the claim that consent was obtained solely through a misconception of fact.

Issues: Whether the sexual relationship based on a promise of marriage constituted an offence of rape through a "misconception of fact" under Section 90 IPC, and whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear distinction exists between a "false promise" to marry (where the maker had no intention of fulfilling it from the start) and a "breach of promise." Consent is not vitiated under Section 90 IPC if the sexual act was motivated by love and passion over a prolonged period rather than a fraudulent misrepresentation. In the absence of evidence that the promise was made in bad faith at the initial stage, a subsequent refusal to marry does not amount to rape.

Result: Petition is allowed and disposed off; FIR and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Quashing of FIR for rape and atrocities act — consensual relationship based on promise of marriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioner: no offence, false promise not proved, delay. State: consent obtained by false promise, offence made out. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )

3. Petition allowed — FIR and all consequential proceedings quashed. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )

4. When does a promise to marry vitiate consent for sexual intercourse under Section 375 IPC?

The promise must be a false promise given in bad faith with no intention to marry at the time it was made, and must bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the act. (Para 12 )

5. What is the distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise to marry for the purpose of Section 90 IPC?

A breach of a promise is not a false promise. To establish a false promise, the maker must have had no intention of upholding the promise at the time it was given. (Para 12 )

6. Under what circumstances can the court quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC citing abuse of process?

When the allegations even if taken at face value do not prima facie constitute any offence, or are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude there is sufficient ground for proceeding. (Para 13 )

7. Does a long consensual relationship followed by refusal to marry constitute rape by false promise of marriage?

No, if the physical relationship continued voluntarily for years and the FIR was lodged only after the petitioner refused to marry, the consent is not vitiated by misconception of fact. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )

8. Can an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be established when the substantive offence of rape is not made out?

No, if the predicate offence of rape is not made out, the ancillary offences under the Atrocities Act also fail. (Para 15 )

ORDER :

B.P. SHARMA, J.

The present petition is being filed by the applicant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No. 2/2024 registered at Police Station Azak, District Narmadapuram, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 354(Gh) and 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 26.02.2024. It is alleged that in the year 2021, the prosecutrix developed an acquaintance with the petitioner and they started communicating with each other over the mobile phone. Over time, she began to trust the petitioner. On one occasion, the prosecutrix reached Itarsi Bus Stand with the intention of travelling to Indore; however, the bus had already departed. She informed the petitioner about the situation over the phone and called him to the bus stand. The petitioner arrived and took her to Sheetal Palace Hotel, Itarsi. When the prosecutrix initially refused to stay in the same room, the petitioner professed his love for her and, on the false promise of marriage, established physical relations with her.

3. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly called the prosecutrix to the same hotel and had sexual relations with her on multiple occasions. The last such incident allegedly occurred on 16.11.2023, when the petitioner called her to the same hotel at around 6:00 p.m. and again established physical relations. Subsequently, the prosecutrix came to know that the petitioner’s real name was Kartik Patel and not Pawan, as he had earlier disclosed. She became frightened upon learning this fact but did not inform her family members. Subsequently, when the prosecutrix requested the petitioner to marry her, he refused. Thereafter, on 26.02.2024, she lodged the present FIR against the petitioner. It was later discovered that Pawan had become engaged to another woman, upon which the prosecutrix filed a further report.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no offence is made out against the petitioner. He relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Mahmood Ali and others vs State of UP and others , reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950. Relevant para of said judgment is quoted as under :

"13. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Sectio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
B.P. SHARMA, J.
Kartik Patel – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 35736 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026

A breach of promise to marry is distinct from a false promise. Consent is not vitiated under Section 90 IPC if a relationship is long-term and consensual, provided the promise wasn't made with no intention of fulfillment from the inception.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When does a promise to marry vitiate consent for sexual intercourse under Section 375 IPC?

5. What is the distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise to marry for the purpose of Section 90 IPC?

6. Under what circumstances can the court quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC citing abuse of process?

7. Does a long consensual relationship followed by refusal to marry constitute rape by false promise of marriage?

8. Can an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be established when the substantive offence of rape is not made out?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURB.P. SHARMA, J.Kartik Patel – Petitioner Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – RespondentsMISC. Criminal Case No. 35736 of 2024Decided On : 05-01-2026

A breach of promise to marry is distinct from a false promise. Consent is not vitiated under Section 90 IPC if a relationship is long-term and consensual, provided the promise wasn't made with no intention of fulfillment from the inception.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. When does a promise to marry vitiate consent for sexual intercourse under Section 375 IPC?

5. What is the distinction between a breach of promise and a false promise to marry for the purpose of Section 90 IPC?

6. Under what circumstances can the court quash an FIR under Section 482 CrPC citing abuse of process?

7. Does a long consensual relationship followed by refusal to marry constitute rape by false promise of marriage?

8. Can an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act be established when the substantive offence of rape is not made out?

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
B.P. SHARMA, J.
Kartik Patel – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Respondents
MISC. Criminal Case No. 35736 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026