HC Says Breach of Promise to Marry Alone Does Not Amount to Rape, Quashes FIR Against 2 Jalna Men

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court quashed a rape and criminal intimidation case against two men from Jalna, ruling that a "mere breach of promise" to marry was insufficient to constitute the offence.Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke allowed a criminal application filed through counsel Raheel Mirza, setting aside the FIR registered at Dhantoli police station.
As per the complaint lodged on October 16, 2020, the 36-year-old woman, who ran a tiffin service, became acquainted with the first accused in December 2018. She said he proposed marriage and maintained a physical relationship with her until May 2019 on that promise, later refusing to marry her. The second accused was charged with visiting her residence with ₹20,000 and threatening her not to contact his brother (first accused).Mirza argued the relationship was consensual between two adults and the FIR was filed nearly a year after the alleged refusal to marry, with no explanation for the delay. The prosecution maintained the consent was obtained under a "misconception of fact", contending the promise of marriage was false from the outset.After examining the FIR and investigation papers, the court observed that both parties were adults who "know the consequences of their act" and continued the relationship for more than a year. "The complainant is a grown-up woman and intelligent enough to understand the importance and consequences of the act she was consenting to," the judge said.Citing Supreme Court's decision in Maheshwar Tigga versus State of Jharkhand, the court reiterated that "under Section 90 of IPC, a consent given under a misconception of fact is no consent in the eyes of law", but clarified such misconception "has to be in proximity of time to the occurrence and cannot be spread over a long period of time".The court distinguished between false promise made with no intention to marry and a subsequent failure to fulfil a genuine promise, stating, "there is a difference between false promise and committing breach of promise". It concluded that "mere breach of promise is not sufficient to attract the offence."Regarding the second accused, the court termed the allegation of offering ₹20,000 and issuing threats as inadequate to sustain a charge under criminal intimidation. The criminal application was accordingly allowed, and the FIR was quashed.Key takeaways from HC verdict:The relationship appeared consensual between 2 adultsFIR was lodged nearly 1 year after the alleged refusal to marryDelay in filing the complaint was noted as unexplainedSC ruling in Maheshwar Tigga Vs State of Jharkhand was citedConsent under "misconception of fact" must be proximate in timeAllegations against the co-accused were termed "omnibus"