False Promise of Marriage Given in Bad Faith Vitiates Consent: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Rape Case

“When Allegations Show Intentional False Promise of Marriage at Inception, It Is a Matter for Trial — Not Quashable Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,” November 4, 2025: The Allahabad High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Avnish Saxena, refused to quash criminal proceedings against Ravi Pal, accused of raping a woman on the false promise of marriage, holding that the allegations in the FIR and the victim’s statements “prima facie disclose a deliberate misrepresentation made in bad faith to obtain consent for sexual relations.”

Dismissing the application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of fact which could only be determined through trial, and not in exercise of the High Court’s inherent powers.

“Consent Vitiated by False Promise — Allegations Satisfy Both Tests Laid Down in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar”

The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on January 17, 2024, by the victim, alleging that the applicant repeatedly had sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage, introducing her to his parents who allegedly expressed their approval. The victim stated that she was taken to a hotel in Gorakhpur and later to Delhi, where she was subjected to repeated sexual acts before being abandoned.

Justice Saxena relied on the Supreme Court’s formulation in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 9 SCC 608, and reiterated:

“To establish whether the consent was vitiated by misconception of fact arising from a promise to marry, it must be shown that the promise was false and given in bad faith, and that such false promise bore a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.”

The Court noted that the victim’s statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were consistent with the FIR, and that the series of events — from the alleged introduction to the family to being taken to Delhi — prima facie indicated that the promise of marriage was false from inception, made only to secure consent.

“High Court Cannot Enter Into Factual Determination at Pre-Trial Stage”

Rejecting the plea to quash the charge-sheet under Section 376 IPC, Justice Saxena observed that the High Court cannot, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., weigh evidence or determine the truthfulness of allegations before trial.

He held:

“Where the allegations in the FIR and statements recorded under the Code prima facie disclose commission of an offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the accused claims the relationship was consensual.”

The Court further emphasized that issues relating to the credibility of the victim, the genuineness of the alleged consent, and the truth of the promise of marriage must be examined in the course of evidence during trial, not in pre-trial scrutiny.

“Delay in FIR Explained by Circumstances — Not Fatal to Prosecution”

Addressing the defence contention regarding delay in lodging the FIR, the Court noted that although the alleged incident occurred on January 3, 2024, the FIR was lodged on January 17, 2024, the explanation offered — that the victim had been left stranded in Delhi and only upon returning to her grandparents could she report the matter — was satisfactory.

“Delay in lodging an FIR in such circumstances cannot be held fatal where the explanation reflects the trauma and vulnerability of the victim,” the Court observed.

“Distinguished Precedents Cited by Defence — Facts Entirely Different”

The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the applicant — Sonu @ Subhash Kumar v. State of U.P. and Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra — noting that those cases involved voluntary relationships between adults without deceitful inducement.

Justice Saxena noted: “In the present case, allegations reveal a clear pattern of inducement, repeated sexual contact under false assurances, and the victim’s consistent objection before marriage — all pointing to lack of genuine consent.”

“Prima Facie Case Made Out — Trial Necessary”

Concluding that the allegations, if proved, would amount to rape under Section 376 IPC, the Court refused to interfere, observing that “the promise of marriage was intentionally false and directly influenced the victim’s consent.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vacating the interim order dated August 1, 2024, and directed that the trial proceed uninfluenced by any observations made in the order.

“When a man induces a woman into sexual relations through an intentionally false promise of marriage, the consent is not free but vitiated by deception — such deceit strikes at the very foundation of personal dignity protected under Article 21,” the Court remarked.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025