Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 12304
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
N.Harikrishnan – Appellant
Versus
State Rep by The Inspector of Police W32-All Women Police Station Madipakkam, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.O.P.Nos.21373 of 2023 and 20254 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.G.Peranban
For the Respondents:Mr.R.Venkatesa Perumal for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side), Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj and Mr.S.V.Jayakumar for R2
Consent under a promise of marriage does not constitute a misconception of fact necessary for establishing offences of rape or cheating.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 417, 406, 294(b) and 506(i) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought to quash FIR alleging serious offences - Defacto complainant consented to sexual relations under promise of marriage - Court noted that consent does not equate to misconception of fact - FIR quashed. (Paras 4, 6, 10, 14)
(B) Consent and Misconception of Fact - Court emphasized that mere breach of promise to marry does not constitute an offence unless bad faith is established - The relationship dynamics indicated mutual consent and no deception from inception. (Paras 8, 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The FIR alleged that the petitioners had a romantic relationship, which later soured, leading to allegations of sexual offences. The defacto complainant, a software engineer, received compensation and expressed no objection to quashing the FIR.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not establish a case of rape or cheating as the defacto complainant had consented to the relationship.
Issues: Whether the allegations constituted a misconception of fact under IPC, leading to charges of rape and cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that consent given under a promise of marriage does not amount to misconception of fact necessary to constitute an offence under IPC. The FIR was quashed due to lack of evidence of deception.
Result: Criminal Original Petitions allowed; FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of relationship and consent. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 2. consent does not equate to misconception. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. quashing of fir due to lack of evidence. (Para 12 , 14) |
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2 of 2022, on the file of the first respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 406 , 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC .
2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.21373 of 2023 is arrayed as A1. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.20254 of 2022 are A2 and A3/brother and mother of the A1.
3. The crux of the allegations in the FIR are that the defacto complainant/second respondent an MCA graduate working as software engineer at Bank of America had met the A1 who was also a software engineer working at SI systems in a conference. A1 proposed the defacto complainant and thereafter, they were in love affair. A1 took the defacto complainant to Tirupathi and exchanged rings and promised that he will marry her. Further, on 03.10.2020 against her wish, he forcibly took her and had sexual intercourse with her and convinced that it is common between husband and wife and thereafter, they had sexual intercourse for several times. Subsequently, A1 had demanded 100 sovereigns and Rs.10 lakhs for marriage which ended in quarrel and thereafter, the A2 and A3 abused her. On intervention of the police, A1 convinced the defacto complainant and started as husband and wife and had sexual intercourse. During January 2021, the family of A1 threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Thereby, a complaint was given and FIR was registered in Cr.No.10 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417, 406 , 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and now the same is sought to be quashed by the petitioners/accused1 to 3.
4. Though initially the petitions were opposed by the defacto complainant by filing counter, later, she has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that due to intervention of well wishers, she has received a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as compensation by way of Demand Draft No.000690 dated 19.03.2025, HDFC Bank. Therefore, she has filed an affidavit expressing no objection to quash the FIR in Cr.No.10 of 2022 dated 25.07.2022 against the accused 1 to 3/petitioners herein.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
6. At the outset, this Court is of the view that the offences of serious nature, compounding is not permissible, however, taking note of the allegations pressed in the FIR, this Court is inclined to dispose of the matters on merits.
7. Perusal of the FIR makes it very clear that the defacto complainant is not an illiterate or rustic person. The very allegations raised by her indicate that she is a MCA graduate working as a software engineer at Bank of America and she had affair with the A1 and both have gone to extent of exchanging the rings and started living as husband and wife and had sexual intercourse on many occasions. Though it is alleged that A1 has deceived her and had sexual intercourse, when the FIR carefully perused, it clearly indicates that they had sexual intercourse as husband and wife for multiple times from the year 2020 to 2022. Thereafter, it appears that relationship got strained, they fell apart and as a result, the complaint came to be filed as against the A1 and his brother and mother.
8. It is relevant to note that the defacto complainant is a fully grown woman and working as a software engineer and consented to sexual intercourse. According to her, as the accused promised to marry her, she continued to indulge in sexual intercourse till their relationship become strained. Therefore, it cannot be stated that only because of deception played by A1, she had succumbed to such a pressure. To bring the case within the ambit of misconception of fact, there must be materials to show that bad faith or deception was present from the very inception. Whereas, the entire allegations in the FIR clearly indicate tha
