False Promise of Marriage Only Taints Consensual Sex as Offence: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that not every consensual sexual relationship between adults can be termed a criminal offence merely because it was allegedly based on a false promise of marriage. Granting bail to a man accused of rape under Section 376 IPC, Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the court must carefully examine whether the consent was "tainted" by a false assurance to marry.

The Case in Brief

The accused, Vimal, and the prosecutrix, a 29-year-old working woman, met at their workplace in December 2023. They developed a close friendship, and the accused allegedly proposed marriage. On the assurance of marriage, the prosecutrix entered into consensual physical relations with him on several occasions. The pair stayed at a hotel in Mahipalpur as many as 17 times. The prosecutrix conceived twice and underwent abortions.

However, in October 2024, she discovered that the accused was already married and had two children. The accused then claimed that divorce proceedings were pending with his wife, leading her to continue the relationship. In May 2026, she lodged an FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

Arguments from Both Sides

The accused's counsel argued that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the prosecutrix had falsely implicated him after he insisted she repay a loan. He pointed to screenshots of WhatsApp chats where the prosecutrix threatened the accused's wife, suggesting the case was a fabrication.

The State, assisted by the Investigating Officer, submitted that the accused had used a fake identity card at the hotel and asked the prosecutrix to impersonate the woman on the card. The prosecution argued that a married man having sexual relations with an unmarried woman was "unpardonable."

The prosecutrix's counsel emphasized that the very first sentence of the FIR indicated fraud, and that granting bail would expose her to threats from the accused.

Court's Legal Analysis

Justice Kathpalia underscored that the offence of rape through false promise of marriage is not made out merely because a consensual relationship is later alleged to have been based on a promise. The court must "read between the lines" to determine if the consent was actually tainted.

The court found it difficult to believe that a grown-up working woman, who was colleagues with the accused for over four months, would not know his marital status. Even after discovering the marriage in October 2024, she continued to stay with him at the hotel 11 more times and underwent two abortions. The court noted that her conduct suggested the relationship was consensual.

The court also highlighted that the prosecutrix's own actions, such as impersonating a different woman at the hotel and threatening the accused's wife in March 2026 chats, undermined the claim of coercion.

Key Observations

"The court also has to be cautious and examine in deep as to whether what was purely consensual sexual relation is being given colour of criminality by adding the allegation of assurance to get married ."

"It is only such tainted consensual sexual relation which is an offence and not merely a consensual sexual relation."

"So far as the argument of learned prosecutor that a married man getting sexually involved outside his marriage is unpardonable, the same would be in the domain of morality or at the most a matrimonial wrong , but the same has to be understood to be distinct from an offence."

Court's Decision

The court concluded that the sexual relations were prima facie consensual and not tainted by any false promise of marriage. It granted bail to the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety. The court directed the accused not to contact any prosecution witnesses. The trial court will form its own view at the conclusion of the trial based on evidence.

The court also noted that the Investigating Officer may carry out further investigation into the impersonation allegations.