Consent given based on a promise of marriage does not automatically negate consent; a court must evaluate the nature of the promise and intentions.

ORDER

Dated : 11^th February, 2026 The accused in C.P.84/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Thrissur, arising out of crime No.865/2023 of Mannuthy police station, Thrissur, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 354 IPC .

2. The prosecution case is that the accused after promising to marry the de facto complainant, subjected her to sexual abuse repeatedly during the period from June 2022 till July 2023 and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same does not constitute the offence of rape. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. On a perusal of the FI statement it is seen that while the de facto complainant was working in the office of a marriage bureau, after the death of her husband, she came in contact with the petitioner who came there for registering his name in the bureau. Thereafter, they regularly used to contact each other. He regularly used to contact her through video calls in which he used to appear naked. On one day he took her to a hotel near Jubilee Mission hospital. Before alighting from the car he applied sindoor on her forehead and tied a knot around her neck. In the hotel they have taken a room and they had physical relationship. After promising to marry her lawfully, he took her to different places on different dates and they had sexual relationship with each other till July 2023. The relationship strained when he had taken steps for marrying another lady.

6. Now the question to be considered is whether the consent given by the de facto complainant to sexual intercourse with the petitioner with whom she was deeply in love, on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, can be said to be given under a misconception of fact. In the decision in Uday v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 4 SCC 46] the Apex Court, while dealing with this issue, held as follows:

“It therefore appears that the consensus of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact. A false promise is not a fact within the meaning of the Code. We are inclined to agree with this view, but we must add that there is no straitjacket formula for determining whether consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse is voluntary, or whether it is given under a misconception of fact.

In the ultimate analysis, the tests laid down by the courts provide at best guidance to the judicial mind while considering a question of consent, but the court must, in each case, consider the evidence before it and the surrounding circumstances, before reaching a conclusion, because each case has its own peculiar facts which may have a bearing on the question whether the consent was voluntary, or was given under a misconception of fact. It must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them.”

7. In the decision in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana [(2013) 7 SCC 675] with regard to consent in case of charge of rape, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that:

“Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceit. Consent is an