A consensual relationship, even with the intent of marriage, does not constitute sexual assault under Section 376 IPC if there is no coercion or false representation.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Shehan Ashraf, learned Advocate and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. The present application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur in S.Tr. No. 161 of 2021 (arising out of Jagdispur P.S. Case No.121 of 2019) whereby and whereunder the petition dated 26.10.2021 filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge the petitioner under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) has been rejected.

4. The brief facts leading to the impugned order emanates from an F.I.R bearing Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2019 dated 26.04.2019, registered under Section 34 1 , 376, 379/34 of the IPC on the written statement of the informant Rabina Tabassum aged about 25 years, alleging inter alia that on the allurement and pretext of marriage, the informant was subjected to sexual exploitation by the petitioner for the last one year. The F.I.R further discloses that on 22.04.2019, on being asked by the petitioner to come along with him for getting married, she left her home along with cash and jewellery and went along with the petitioner to his maternal uncle’s house where they stayed in a room where the father of the petitioner had arrived and upon his assurance for marriage, she, along with the petitioner, came back to her village whereafter the mother of the petitioner also assured the informant’s parents about marriage which never happened. Hence, the present case was instituted stating in the F.I.R that other members of the family are also preventing the marriage to happen.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner and others and cognizance was taken thereupon under Section 376 , 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC and after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the petitioner filed the discharge application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. which stood rejected vide the impugned order dated

17.11.2021.

6. A report with regard to the stage of the case has been called for which reveals that charges have not been framed as yet.

7. Mr. S.M. Ashraf, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioner, much less an offence under Section 376 of the IPC. He has substantiated his submission on account of the fact that a bare perusal of the allegations made in the F.I.R itself would disclose that the petitioner and the informant/victim were having a relationship which was continuing for the past one year and the informant being a 25 years old adult, as she herself claims in the F.I.R, had entered into physical relationship with the petitioner with open eyes and there is no allegation of any threat perception or any force or coercion exercised upon her. He has thus submitted that a relationship between two consenting adults would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 376 of IPC. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that even in the statement of the informant/victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has not whispered a single word with regard to any sexual assault by the petitioner and has rather narrated the story in a different manner making reference to assurance given by the petitioner’s parents, specifically her mother about getting her married to the petitioner which is a definite pointer to the fa