The mere breach of promise to marry does not amount to rape or constitute criminal offences without corroborative evidence of deceitful intent.

ORAL ORDER

1. The Respondent No. 2 lodged a first information report (FIR) on 3.7.2022, stating that the petitioner had expressed his love for her over the last six years. Between 1.3.2022 and 7.3.2022, the petitioner allegedly took the survivor to a hotel in Koppal under the pretense of marrying her and forcibly committed sexual intercourse on three occasions. Thereafter, when Respondent No. 2 insisted the petitioner marry her, he refused.

2. Respondent No. 2, despite being served with notice, did not appear in person or through counsel and was consequently placed ex parte.

3. The arguments of learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

4. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 were allegedly in a relationship for six years prior to the lodging of the FIR. The alleged incident of the petitioner engaging in sexual intercourse with Respondent No. 2 under a promise of marriage occurred between 1.3.2022 and 7.3.2022. Respondent No. 2, who was working as a Branch Post Master at Kukanoor, was terminated from service in 2019. She had previously filed an FIR against the Inspector of Posts alleging offences under Sections 354(A), 506, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC , and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This Court, vide order dated 24.01.2023, quashed the said proceedings.

5. The petitioner has annexed a copy of a petition filed by Respondent No. 2 and her husband seeking dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent under Section 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955. A perusal of the petition indicates that their marriage was solemnized on 30.12.2018. However, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, suggesting that the marriage of Respondent No. 2 is still subsisting.

6. There is no allegation, let alone any material evidence, to substantiate that the petitioner induced Respondent No. 2 to engage in sexual intercourse by making a false promise of marriage. Mere breach of a promise to marry does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute offences of cheating or rape.

7. In a similar set of circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shambhu Kharwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, reiterated its position in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh , holding as follows:

● Consent under Section 375 IPC involves an active understanding of the circumstances, actions, and consequences of the act. An individual who makes a reasoned choice to act after evaluating alternatives consents to such action.

● A distinction exists between a false promise made with the intent to deceive and a breach of a promise made in good faith but later unfulfilled.

● Consent is vitiated by “misconception of fact” under Section 375 IPC only if the promise to marry was false, made in bad faith, and intended to deceive at the time it was given.

8. In the present case, the allegations of Respondent No.

2 against the petitioner suggest that the FIR was lodged only after their relationship soured. Moreover, the alleged relationship occurred during the subsistence of Respondent No. 2’s marriage. Thus, the essential ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 420 and 376 IPC are conspicuously absent. Continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in SC(AC) No. 64/2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, are hereby quashed.