Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court held that if a woman makes a reasoned decision to engage in physical relations after fully comprehending the consequences, the 'consent' can not be deemed misconceived unless there is clear evidence of a false promise made by the other party without any intention of fulfilling it. 

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held, “Whensoever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations after fully understanding the consequences of such action, the ‘consent’ cannot be said to be based on misconception of fact until and unless there is a clear evidence that a false promise with no intention of upholding the same was given by the maker at the time of making the promise”. 

According to the prosecution's case, the FIR was filed based on a complaint from the complainant (respondent no. 2). She alleged that she had developed a relationship with the accused (petitioner) during 'Prabhat Pheri,' and he had repeatedly engaged in physical relations with her under the pretext of marriage. However, the accused expressed his inability to marry her due to a prior engagement fixed by his family. 

Advocate Ambika representing the accused argued that after the FIR was lodged he was released on bail as both parties mutually agreed to marry. A petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting the dismissal of FIR under Section 376 IPC.

Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya representing the State asserted that the complainant was happily married and she did not wish to pursue the FIR, which she believes was filed under a misunderstanding, as the accused faced resistance from his family regarding the marriage.

The court noted that whenever a woman makes an informed decision to engage in physical intimacy after comprehending its consequences, the concept of 'consent' cannot be deemed as misconceived unless there is clear evidence of a false promise made by the initiator, without any intention to fulfill it, at the time of making such a promise. This promise should be directly relevant and have a clear connection to the woman's decision to participate in the sexual act.

“Given the nature of relationship between the petitioner and respondent no.2, it does not appear that any such alleged promise was in bad faith or to deceive respondent no.2 but for the subsequent developments in the family of the petitioner”, the bench observed.

It was noteworthy that during the investigation, the accused voluntarily married the complainant in a short timeframe. Given these circumstances, court deemed it not reasonable to interpret the initial promise by the accused as lacking intention for fulfillment.

“It cannot be ignored that quashing of proceedings shall result in better harmony in the matrimonial relationship between the parties, rather than continuing with the proceedings under Section 376 IPC”, the court added. 

In light of these circumstances, the court noted that there was no practical purpose in keeping the case pending. Continuing the proceedings would only amount to an abuse of the court process and disrupt the harmony between the parties, it said. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

Case Title: ‘I S’ v Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr