Prolonged Physical Relationship By Educated Woman Amounts To 'Promiscuity', Not Rape Induced By Misconception Of Fact: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"If a fully grown-up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse and continues to indulge in such activity, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a sustained physical relationship engaged in by a mature, educated woman does not constitute rape under a misconception of fact.

A bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat quashed a rape FIR against a skating coach, observing that the essential ingredients of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not established as the relationship was clearly consensual.

The petitioner, a skating coach, was accused of raping and blackmailing a 34-year-old married dentist whose children attended his classes. The FIR was lodged by the woman's husband after he checked her mobile phone, discovered she had undergone a secret abortion, and confronted her with the threat of divorce. Following this threat, the woman claimed the petitioner had forcibly established physical relations and blackmailed her, prompting the petitioner to seek quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The primary question before the court was whether a prolonged physical relationship maintained by a married, educated woman could be legally classified as rape vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the IPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the basic ingredients of Section 375 of the IPC were satisfied to sustain the criminal prosecution.

Absence Of Coercion Or Blackmail

The court noted at the outset that the prosecutrix was a highly educated major, a qualified doctor, and a mother of two who had maintained relations with the petitioner over a considerable period. The bench observed that the prosecution and state counsel admitted during the investigation that no audio, video, or digital evidence was found to support the allegations of blackmail. Furthermore, the case records indicated that a hotel room was booked jointly, with entries made in the woman's own handwriting.

Disclosure Driven By Fear Of Divorce

Analyzing the sequence of events leading to the FIR, the court emphasized that the woman kept the relationship hidden until her husband discovered her secret abortion procedure. It was only when the husband explicitly threatened to divorce her that she leveled allegations of rape against the petitioner. The court deduced from these admitted facts that the woman was unable to substantiate any deceitful or forceful behavior by the petitioner over the extended timeframe.

"The only reasonable inference which can be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case is that respondent No. 3 and the petitioner had developed a friendship, and later on, they also developed a physical relationship."

Consent And Misconception Of Fact

Relying on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in cases like Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the court elaborated on the fine distinction between valid consent and consent vitiated under Section 90 of the IPC. The bench reiterated that lawful consent under Section 375 of the IPC requires an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act.

Nexus Between Promise And Physical Act

The court highlighted that if a relationship is maintained over a prolonged period knowingly by a woman, it cannot be easily termed as a relationship purely resulting from deception or a misconception of fact. The judge observed that any physical relationship claimed to be based on a false promise must be traceable directly to that specific promise or deception, wholly uninfluenced by other considerations or personal likings.

Prolonged Relationship Amounts To Promiscuity

Concluding the factual and legal analysis, the court ruled that the statutory ingredients of rape under Section 375 of the IPC were entirely absent in the present dispute. The bench firmly stated that when a mature and educated woman actively engages in a sustained sexual relationship, it cannot be legally construed as an act induced by fear or a misconception of fact, terming such conduct an act of promiscuity instead.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the petition, concluding that permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would result in a grave abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the FIR registered under Section 376(2) of the IPC at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh, along with all consequential proceedings, was quashed in its entirety qua the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2026