Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J
JITENDER JAIN @ MONU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. – Respondent
Crl.Pet./950/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR. R SALOI, MR. H AGARWAL, MR. J SINGH
For the Respondents: PP, ASSAM
Consensual relationships where both parties are mature and there is no evidence of coercion do not constitute grounds for rape or cheating charges under the IPC.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Allegations made under Sections 376/417 IPC - Consent of complainant in a relationship deemed valid under law, as they had a consensual affair without objection - The court held that the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence based on the facts presented. (Paras 7, 8, 19)
(B) Sexual Offences - Consent - The court emphasized that consent, when given by a mature individual in a context of a relationship, cannot typically be construed as coercion or misconception - The court highlighted relevant precedents reinforcing that absolute consent nullifies the basis of sexual violence allegations when grounded in consensual intent. (Paras 9-11)
Facts of the case:
The FIR presented allegations of rape and cheating based on a sidelined love affair between the parties, with claims that a promise of marriage was breached.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the absence of misleading intention or lack of consent, validating the accused's actions leading to quashing charges.
Issues: The central questions revolved around the nature of consent and whether the promise of marriage constituted deceit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court arrived at the conclusion that the relationship was consensual, alongside the understanding that mere breach of a promise does not amount to cheating or rape under legal definitions.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir filed based on consensual relationship's context. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. nature of consent in romantic relationships evaluated. (Para 3 , 6 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. legal implications of consent clarified in court observations. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. court's rationale in quashing the fir established. (Para 9 , 13 , 19) |
| 5. final decision to quash fir based on legal findings. (Para 20) |
D/O- LATE MD. TASLIM R/O- SANTIPATTI P.S. DIPHU GUWAHATI DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM-782460 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D KONWAR SR. ADV., MR. R SALOI,MR H AGARWAL,MR J SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 08.08.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (S.K. Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. B D Konwar, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. J Konwar, learned for the petitioner and Mr. P S Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. None appeared for the respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973 (as amended) for quashing of the PRC Case No. 355/2022 arising out of Bongaigaon Police Station Case No. 100/2022 registered under Sections 376 /417 of the IPC pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon.
3. The informant/respondent No. 2 herein had lodged an FIR on 21.02.2022 alleging that since April, 2021 she was in love with the accused petitioner who promised to marry her and developed physical relationship with her in the month of August in his house. On 21.09.2021 he took her to Calcutta and kept her in a hotel and raped her. Thereafter on 23.09.2021 he put Sindoor and Mangalsutra and married her. After returning they stayed separately, but many times the accused petitioner called her to his house and raped her.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an FIR No. 100/2022 was lodged to take necessary legal actions. Accordingly, police registered a case as per the complainant’s report for the offences punishable under Sections 376 /417 of the IPC, 1860.
5. The accused petitioner was taken into custody and subsequently released on bail.
6. Mr. B D Konwar, learned Senior counsel has submitted that even if the facts disclosed in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no offence under Sections
376/417 IPC is made out against the accused petitioner.
7. It submitted that in the instant case the complainant is a grown-up major woman who was deeply in love with the accused/petitioner. While it appears that the accused/petitioner and the complainant had a love affair, she had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to. Despite this, she did not resist the overtures of the accused/petitioner and in fact succumbed to them given the fact their physical relationship sustained over a long period of time, so it can be presumed that the complainant was a consenting party. She thus freely exercised a choice between resistance and assent and therefore, all these circumstances lead to the conclusion that the complainant freely, voluntarily and consciously consented to having sexual intercourse with the accused/petitioner and her consent was not in consequence of any misconception of fact. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC, 1860 to attract punishment under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 is not attracted against the accused petitioner.
8. It is further stated that a plain reading of the FIR dated 21.02.2022 makes it clear that there was neither fraudulent nor dishonest intention on the part of the accused/petitioner at the beginning of the love affair with the complainant nor there is breach of contract. Moreover, a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating under Section 417 of the IPC, unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of their love affair or relationship. In order to constitute cheating
