Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court

"The failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated 30th September 2026, held that a sexual relationship established between two consenting adults, where the female partner was aware of the accused's pre-existing marital status and chose to wait for a divorce, cannot be prosecuted as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

A bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that to satisfy the definition of "rape" based on a false promise of marriage, the prosecution must prove that the accused had no intention of fulfilling the promise from the very inception and that the consent was obtained solely through such deception.

The applicant, a former Police Inspector, sought to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings arising from an FIR lodged by the prosecutrix in 2020. The complainant alleged that the applicant had engaged in sexual relations with her under the false pretext of marriage, concealing his prior marriage, and subsequently blackmailed her using explicit photographs. The accused contended that the relationship was entirely consensual, that the prosecutrix was aware of his marital situation, and that the case was a malicious fabrication instigated by his first wife.

The primary question before the court was whether the sexual relationship between the parties amounted to rape under Section 376 IPC, or whether the consent of the prosecutrix was valid under Section 90 IPC. The court was also tasked with determining whether a breach of promise to marry could be elevated to a criminal offence in the absence of evidence of initial dishonest intent to deceive.

Distinguishing Consent from Misconception

 The court emphasized the critical distinction between a consensual sexual relationship and one vitiated by "misconception of fact" under Section 90 IPC. Referring to the Supreme Court’s dictum in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, the bench reiterated that for consent to be vitiated, the promise of marriage must be false at the very inception, made with bad faith and no intention of adherence, and must bear a direct nexus to the decision to engage in the sexual act.

No Absolute Presumption of Truth

The court underscored that the testimony of a victim, while significant, is not to be treated as "gospel truth" in every instance. Applying the principle from Abbas Ahmed Choudhury v. State of Assam, the bench noted that sexual assault cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that if a woman continues a physical relationship for a prolonged duration without protest or insistence on marriage, it indicates a consensual relationship rather than one based on deception.

Court Explains Essential Ingredients of Deception

The court clarified that to establish criminal liability, the prosecution must prove that the accused made a promise without the intent to fulfill it, solely to satisfy his lust, and that this dishonest intent existed from the very beginning. Failure to marry due to subsequent, unavoidable circumstances—such as the time taken for legal divorce proceedings—does not transform a consensual act into a criminal offence.

"The 'failure to keep a promise made with respect to a future uncertain date, due to reasons that are not very clear from the evidence available, does not always amount to misconception of fact. In order to come within the meaning of the term 'misconception of fact', the fact must have an immediate relevance."

Evidence of Consensual Relationship

The court highlighted that the prosecutrix was an educated adult who was aware of the applicant's marital status. WhatsApp chats produced on record explicitly showed the prosecutrix stating she was willing to wait for the applicant's divorce to finalize before marrying. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of the alleged "obscene photographs" in the case diary, rendering the claim of blackmail unsubstantiated.

Dangers of Criminalizing Soured Relationships

The court expressed concern over the misuse of the criminal justice system to settle personal grievances. It noted that the prosecutrix had subsequently married another person, a fact not disclosed to the court. The bench warned that attaching criminal liability to long-term relationships that have simply turned sour poses a serious threat of abusing the legal process to drag individuals into the "juggernaut of stringent criminal process."

Finding that the allegations did not disclose the commission of offences under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 IPC, or Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act, the court concluded that the continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and quashed the entire criminal case pending before the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2026