In a significant ruling reinforcing the legal protection of sexual autonomy, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to quash an FIR for rape filed by a woman who alleged she was sexually exploited under the false promise of marriage. The Court held that age difference between the parties cannot be a defence when allegations involve fraudulent inducement into a sexual relationship.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over CRL.M.C. 2104/2022 & CRL.M.A. 8894/2022, titled X vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., dismissed the plea of the accused man who had sought quashing of FIR No. 99/2021 registered at Safdarjung Enclave Police Station under Sections 376 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Mr. Kushal Kumar, Mr. Akash Deep Gupta, and Mr. Rajan Malhotra. The State was represented by APP Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, while respondent no. 2 (the complainant) was represented by Mr. Surbhit Nandan and Mr. Sandeep Mishra.
Background of the Case
According to the FIR, the complainant met the petitioner in October 2017 at their workplace in Gurugram. They entered into a romantic relationship in December 2017. The complainant alleged that the petitioner persistently assured her of marriage, causing her to reject other matrimonial proposals. She claimed that between 2018 and 2021, the petitioner engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with her—including anal intercourse—despite her resistance, citing the promise of a future together.
She further alleged that she lent the petitioner ₹4-5 lakhs over time, believing his assurances of marriage. In March 2021, when she confronted him after he began avoiding her, he refused both marriage and repayment of the money. She filed a complaint on May 4, 2021, which led to the FIR.
Key Legal Issues
The Court examined the validity of consent obtained through a false promise of marriage, the relevance of age difference, and whether such consent amounts to “consent” under Section 90 of the IPC.
Justice Sharma relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Anurag Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 13 SCC 1], which held that consent obtained on a false promise of marriage, where the accused never intended to marry, is not free and informed consent and thus falls under the ambit of rape as per Section 375 of the IPC.
Quoting the judgment, the Court stated:
“If it is established and proved that from the inception the accused… did not have any intention to marry and the prosecutrix gave the consent for sexual intercourse on such an assurance… such a consent can be said to be a consent obtained on a misconception of fact as per Section 90 IPC.”
Court’s Observations
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the complainant’s older age and awareness of family opposition made her consent informed and voluntary. Justice Sharma strongly rebutted this logic, calling it “patriarchal and legally flawed.”
“The argument that the victim should have realized the difficulties in marriage due to being elder to the petitioner is legally untenable and devoid of merit… A woman’s decision to engage in a relationship based on the man’s specific promises cannot be dismissed as mere obsession,” the Court said.
“Such an argument not only lacks legal standing but also reflects a misogynistic perspective that seeks to impose an unreasonable burden on the victim,” it added.
The Court emphasized that the complainant’s consent was based on a “legitimate expectation of marriage” and if it is proven during trial that the petitioner never intended to marry her, such consent would be invalid in law.
Decision
Dismissing the petition, the Court held:
“The allegations against the petitioner necessitate a full trial… Given the prima facie material on record and the gravity of the allegations, this Court finds no justification for quashing the FIR at this stage.”
The petition and pending applications were accordingly dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding the quashing plea and should not influence the merits of the trial.
