False Promise Of Marriage Not Made Out: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Rape Case After 13-Year Relationship

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a criminal case alleging rape on the false promise of marriage, holding that a long-standing relationship between two consenting adults cannot automatically be criminalised merely because it eventually failed. The court observed that where a relationship continues for several years with the knowledge of both parties, it becomes difficult to infer that the consent was obtained solely on the basis of a fraudulent promise of marriage.

The order was passed by Justice Vinay Saraf while allowing a petition filed by Varun Pratap Singh seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Mahila Thana, Bhopal under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 506, IPC).

According to the FIR, the complainant alleged that she met the petitioner in December 2012 at an Army canteen in Bhopal and that the two subsequently developed a close relationship. She alleged that the petitioner represented himself as unmarried and promised to marry her, on the basis of which she entered into a physical relationship with him. The complainant further claimed that she later discovered that the petitioner was already married but continued the relationship after he allegedly assured her that he would obtain a divorce and marry her in the future. The FIR also alleged that the petitioner later began interacting with other women and threatened her, following which she lodged the complaint in 2025.

Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, appearing with Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Ahirwar for the petitioner, argued that the relationship between the parties was consensual from the very beginning and continued voluntarily for over a decade. It was submitted that the complainant, who is a police constable working with the Special Police Establishment in the Lokayukta organisation, was fully aware of the petitioner’s marital status since 2013 but nevertheless continued the relationship until 2025 without raising any complaint. The counsel contended that such circumstances clearly demonstrate that the relationship was voluntary and cannot be retrospectively turned into a criminal offence.

The State, represented by Panel Lawyer Nalini Gurung, opposed the plea and argued that the petitioner had initially misrepresented his marital status and had induced the complainant into a physical relationship by promising to marry her. Counsel appearing for the complainant, Advocate Dinesh Tripathi, also opposed the petition, submitting that the petitioner had repeatedly assured the complainant and even her parents that he would marry her, thereby obtaining her consent through deceit.

After examining the FIR, the statements of the complainant and the legal position on consent in cases involving allegations of sexual relations on the promise of marriage, the court concluded that the material on record did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. The court noted that both the petitioner and the complainant were educated individuals serving in uniformed services and had maintained a relationship for nearly 12 to 13 years. In such circumstances, the court found it difficult to accept that the complainant continued the relationship solely due to a false promise of marriage.

Referring to a line of Supreme Court decisions on the issue, the court reiterated that consent in the context of sexual relations must involve “an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act.” The court further emphasised that for a promise of marriage to vitiate consent, it must be shown that the promise was false from the very beginning and was made with the intention of deceiving the woman into entering the relationship.

The court observed that “it is not convincible that the complainant or any woman who is working in a Police Department would continue to meet the petitioner or maintain a prolonged physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.” It added that considering the lengthy relationship between the parties, it was difficult to believe that the physical relations were established solely on the basis of a false promise of marriage.

Justice Saraf also observed that the timing of the FIR indicated that the complaint appeared to have been filed after the relationship had turned sour. The court remarked that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Holding that the continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the court exercised its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482, CrPC) to quash the FIR as well as the charge sheet and all consequential proceedings arising from it.

Case Title: Varun Pratap Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: March 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Vinay Saraf