The Patna High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against a man accused of rape under the pretext of marriage, observing that a consensual relationship between adults cannot be given the colour of criminality merely because it failed to fructify into a marital relationship.
Justice Soni Shrivastava allowed the petition filed by Md. Saif Ali Ansari, setting aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur, which had rejected the petitioner’s discharge application. The Court held that the prosecution was “frivolous and vexatious” and that the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were “clearly and visibly not made out.”
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from an F.I.R. (Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2019) registered on April 26, 2019, under Sections 341, 376, and 379/34 of the IPC. The informant, Ravina Tabassum, aged about 25 years, alleged that she was subjected to sexual exploitation by the petitioner for one year on the allurement and pretext of marriage.
According to the F.I.R., on April 22, 2019, the petitioner asked the informant to accompany him for marriage. She left her home with cash and jewellery and went with him to his maternal uncle’s house. The informant alleged that the petitioner’s father arrived there and assured her of marriage, following which they returned to her village. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother also reportedly assured the informant’s parents about the marriage, but the marriage never took place. The F.I.R. stated that other family members were preventing the marriage.
Following the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted, and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur, vide an order dated November 17, 2021. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner moved the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner’s Contentions: Senior Advocate Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf, appearing for the petitioner, argued that no offence under Section 376 of the IPC was made out. He submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. disclosed that the petitioner and the informant, a 25-year-old adult, were in a relationship for one year. He contended that she entered into the physical relationship “with open eyes” and without any threat, force, or coercion.
The Senior Counsel further pointed out that in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the informant did not allege sexual assault but narrated a story regarding assurances given by the petitioner’s parents. He argued this indicated a bona fide intention of marriage initially, which negated the claim of misconception of fact. Additionally, he referred to the medical examination, noting that no spermatozoa was found, which did not corroborate the allegations in the F.I.R.
Reliance was placed on recent judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, including Jaspal Singh Kaural Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), Surendra Khawse Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025), and Prashant Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025).
The State’s Contentions: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State, opposed the application. He argued that the allegations in the F.I.R. and materials collected during the investigation constituted an offence under Section 376 IPC. He submitted that the informant was sexually exploited upon a “false promise to marry,” indicating that she entered the relationship upon a “misconception of fact,” rendering her consent invalid in the eyes of law.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court observed that the prosecutrix was a 25-year-old adult who had been in a relationship with the petitioner for a year, leading to the inference of a consensual relationship. The Court emphasized the need to distinguish between a “false promise” to marry (misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC) and a “breach of promise.”
Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise: Referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Naim Ahmed Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 15 SCC 385, the Court quoted:
“In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix… whereas in case of breach of promise, one cannot deny a possibility that the accused might have given a promise with all seriousness to marry her, and subsequently might have encountered certain circumstances unforeseen by him… It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376.”
The Court noted that the prosecutrix herself stated that interference by family members caused impediments in the marriage. The Court held:
“The facts and materials disclosed in the present case, in no way, point towards any such intention of the petitioner to have sexually exploited her without intending to marry her.”
On Consent and Misconception of Fact: Citing Pramod Suryabhan Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608, the Court reiterated that to vitiate consent, the promise of marriage must be false, given in bad faith, and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The Court concluded there was nothing on record to indicate that the prosecutrix engaged in the relationship only on account of a false promise.
Judicial Precedents on Failed Relationships: The Court relied on the judgment in Prashant Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025) 5 SCC 764, quoting:
“A mere break up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings. What was a consensual relationship between the parties at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship.”
Further reliance was placed on Samadhan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2025 SCC Online SC 2528), where the Apex Court held:
“The acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery.”
Role of Trial Court in Discharge: Referring to Kanchan Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2022) 9 SCC 577, the High Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not a “mere post office” and must conduct a simple inquiry to see if a case is made out for trial.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the informant, by virtue of her age and maturity, made a conscious and informed choice to engage in a sexual relationship.
“A criminal prosecution under Section 376 of IPC cannot be permitted to be initiated and to continue merely on account of the reason that a cordial and consensual relationship between a consenting couple does not materialize and fructify into a marital relationship,” Justice Shrivastava observed.
Finding that the continuance of prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court quashed the order dated November 17, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur, and allowed the application.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Md. Saif Ali Ansari vs. The State of Bihar
- Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3303 of 2022
- Coram: Justice Soni Shrivastava
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Syed Masleh Uddin Ashraf (Sr. Advocate), Mr. Shehan Ashraf (Advocate)
- Counsel for State: Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh (APP)
