Consensual Relationship Cannot Be Criminalised After Regret: Orissa High Court Quashes FIR Based on Promise of Marriage

“Inherent Powers Must Be Invoked When Continuation Becomes Abuse of Process”, In a significant ruling on the misuse of criminal law in consensual relationship disputes, the Orissa High Court has held that where parties voluntarily engage in a physical relationship despite being aware of subsisting marriages, continuation of criminal proceedings for cheating, deceit, or related offences amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi exercised inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of Dharamsala P.S. Case No. 408/2023.

The Court held that even if the allegations were accepted at face value, the ingredients of offences under Sections 417 and 493 IPC were not prima facie made out.

Allegation of Physical Relationship on Promise of Marriage

The complainant alleged that Petitioner No.1 was in a love relationship with her for a considerable period and had promised to marry her. On that promise, she claimed to have entered into a physical relationship with him. Later, the petitioner allegedly informed her that his marriage had been solemnized by his parents and denied the relationship.

An FIR was registered under Sections 341, 294, 323, 354, 417, 493, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the relationship was consensual and that no offence was disclosed.

“Consent Was Conscious and Informed”

The Court noted a crucial fact — at the time of the alleged relationship, the complainant herself was a married woman and fully aware of the subsisting marital bond and the legal impediment to contracting a lawful marriage with the petitioner.

“The materials placed on record indicate that the victim, being a married woman, was fully aware of the subsisting marital bond and the legal impediment to entering into a lawful marriage with the petitioner.”

The Court further observed that the relationship continued for a considerable period and that the complaint appeared to have been lodged only after the petitioner declined to continue the relationship.

“It appears that the complaint came to be lodged only after the Petitioner declined to continue the physical relationship.”

Thus, the Court held that the complainant had taken a conscious and informed decision in entering into and continuing the relationship.

“Mere Failure to Marry Is Not Cheating”

Examining the ingredients of Sections 417 and 493 IPC, the Court held that even if the complainant’s version was accepted in entirety, there was no material to show dishonest inducement or fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship.

“Even if the version of the prosecutrix is taken at its face value, there is no material available on record to prima facie establish that there was any dishonest inducement or intentional misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner.”

The Court reiterated that criminal liability for cheating cannot arise merely because a relationship later ends or a promise does not culminate in marriage, especially when both parties knowingly entered into a consensual relationship.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents

The High Court relied on Jothiragawan v. State (2025 SCC OnLine SC 628), where the Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings initiated in similar circumstances were “nothing but an abuse of process of the court.”

It also referred to Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State of NCT of Delhi, wherein the Supreme Court observed that a prolonged consensual relationship between adults negates the element of force or deceit, particularly when the prosecutrix is fully conscious of her actions.

The Orissa High Court echoed this reasoning:

“The prolonged period of relationship… is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship.”

“Criminal Law Cannot Be Invoked to Penalize Consensual Acts Subsequently Regretted”

The Court emphasised that the complainant was a mature and educated woman capable of understanding the legal and moral consequences of entering into a relationship during subsistence of marriage.

“It is not the case that the complainant was of tender or immature age… she is a mature and educated woman, fully competent to comprehend the implications.”

The Court observed that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to penalise consensual acts merely because the relationship later deteriorates.

Permitting such proceedings to continue, the Court held, would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of the process of law.

Inherent Powers Under Section 482 CrPC

Reiterating the settled principle governing exercise of inherent powers, the Court held that where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose commission of any offence, the High Court is duty-bound to intervene.

“This Court is of the considered view that, even if the allegations… are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose the commission of any offence.”

Accordingly, the FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Allowing the CRLMC, the High Court set aside the FIR in Dharamsala P.S. Case No. 408/2023 corresponding to C.T. Case No. 1152/2023 pending before the JMFC, Chandikhole, along with all consequential proceedings. Interim orders stood vacated.

The judgment reinforces that consensual relationships between informed adults, even if morally contentious, cannot be converted into criminal prosecutions absent clear proof of deceit at inception. It underscores the constitutional role of High Courts in preventing abuse of criminal process.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026