The High Court of Delhi on September 3, 2025, quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged rape on the false pretext of marriage. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, concluded that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the allegation of a false promise of marriage from the inception was negated by evidence, including a marriage certificate.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed by a 24-year-old woman, leading to the registration of FIR No. 447/2024 at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had subjected her to physical, emotional, and sexual exploitation under a false promise of marriage.
According to the complaint, the parties’ families first met on January 18, 2023, to discuss an arranged marriage, where a dowry demand of Rs. 1 crore was allegedly made. Although the proposal did not proceed, the petitioner and complainant began communicating. The complainant stated that the petitioner gained her trust with repeated assurances of marriage.
The FIR detailed several instances where the petitioner allegedly engaged in sexual relations with her on this pretext, starting from a trip to Varanasi on July 8-9, 2023. The complainant further alleged that she later discovered the petitioner had married another woman in April 2024 for a dowry of Rs. 60 lakhs. Despite this, she claimed the petitioner continued to manipulate her, meeting her in Delhi in May and August 2024, engaging in further sexual relations, and promising to leave his wife. Following an investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 376/506 of the IPC.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner: The senior advocate for the petitioner argued that the FIR was false, motivated, and filed out of vengeance. The defense contended that the petitioner and the complainant had, in fact, married on January 21, 2024, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies in a temple, and a marriage certificate was on record. It was submitted that the marriage was kept confidential at the complainant’s insistence for her to prepare for the UPSC examination. The petitioner claimed that he married another woman under family pressure only after the complainant refused to make their marriage public, which led to threats and the present FIR.
For the State and the Complainant: The learned APP for the State argued that the petitioner had lured the complainant into a physical relationship with a false promise of marriage that he never intended to honour. It was contended that a prima facie case under Section 376 of the IPC was made out. The counsel for the complainant supported this, adding that the petitioner himself had denied the validity of his marriage to the complainant before the CAW Cell and had subsequently married another woman.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
After examining the material on record and hearing the arguments, the Court undertook a detailed analysis of the facts and the governing legal principles.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the relationship began after the formal marriage proposal failed and that the complainant, an educated 24-year-old adult, had voluntarily entered into the relationship. The Court observed, “The long duration of their association, coupled with repeated meetings and travels together, indicates that both parties were engaged in a consensual relationship with the intention of marriage.”
A crucial finding was that the allegation of a false promise from the very beginning was “belied by the record.” The Court highlighted the marriage certificate dated January 21, 2024, from an Arya Samaj Mandir, a fact verified by the investigating officer. The judgment stated, “In these circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner had no intention of marrying the complainant; on the contrary, the fact of marriage itself indicates that he did marry her.”
The Court also pointed out inconsistencies in the complainant’s stance, noting that she had referred to the petitioner as her “husband” in a prior complaint to the CAW Cell, yet alleged in the FIR that the marriage certificate was fabricated. Significantly, the Court observed that the complainant continued the sexual relationship even after becoming aware of the petitioner’s second marriage.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Court emphasized the distinction between a “mere breach of a promise, and not fulfilling a false promise.” The judgment quoted, “An accused can be convicted for rape only if the court reaches a conclusion that the intention of the accused was mala fide, and that he had clandestine motives.”
The Court also expressed concern over the increasing number of such cases, stating, “This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the criminal justice system is increasingly being burdened with FIRs for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC where allegations of sexual exploitation are levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships.”
Clarifying its judicial role, the Court remarked, “The role of the Court is not to sit in judgment over the morality of such relationships, nor to enforce notions of social propriety between consenting adults… To do so would not only trivialize the gravity of genuine cases of sexual assault but would also risk turning the solemn remedy of criminal law into an instrument of vengeance or leverage.”
The Decision
Concluding that the necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC were not met, the Court held that the case was fit for exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court ordered: “Accordingly, the FIR No. 447/2024, registered on 21.11.2024 at P.S. Nabi Karim (North), Delhi, is quashed alongwith all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.”
