'Failure Of Love Not A Crime': Orissa HC Quashes Rape Charges Against Man Accused Of Sex On False Promise Of Marriage

The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi said that non-culmination of the relationship into marriage may be a source of personal grievance but not a crime and thus, he observed –

“The law does not extend its protection to every broken promise nor does it impose criminality upon every failed relationship. The Petitioner and the prosecutrix entered into a relationship in 2012, when both were competent, consenting adults, capable of making their own choices, of exercising their own will, and of shaping their own futures. That the relationship did not culminate in marriage may be a source of personal grievance, but the failure of love is not a crime, nor does the law transform disappointment into deception.”

Case Background

The complainant/lady lodged a complaint alleging that she and the petitioner met in 2012 while both were pursuing a computer course in Sambalpur. They developed a close friendship that eventually led the petitioner to fall in love with her and he started having physical relationship with her on the false promise of marriage.

She claimed that the relationship was against her will and alleged being a victim of torture by the petitioner. She further alleged that the petitioner failed to register their marriage as promised and administered contraceptive pills to prevent her pregnancy.

However, in 2023, the prosecutrix filed a civil proceeding in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur, seeking a declaration that she is the legally married wife of the petitioner and also seeking an injunction to prevent him from marrying anyone else.

In the civil suit, she claimed that on 03.02.2021, she and the petitioner had solemnized their marriage at Samaleswari Temple, Sambalpur, and exchanged garlands, vermilion, and mangalsutra. She also alleged that they applied for marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act, but the petitioner failed to appear for the registration on 18.03.2021.

Subsequent to the failure in registering marriage, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR pursuant to which a case under Sections 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this petition seeking to quash the pending criminal proceedings.

Court's Findings

The Court took note of the fact that a long-term consensual relationship spanning over nine years lasted between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, which began in 2012 and ended in the FIR being registered in 2021. The prosecutrix, however, claimed that the petitioner engaged in physical relationship with her based on a false promise of marriage.

Strikingly, she later in a civil case stated that she was already married to him. Thus, the Court held that this contradiction, along with the lack of evidence of coercion or deception at the beginning of the relationship, is central to the dispute.

The primary question which needed to be answered was whether the petitioner's failure to marry the prosecutrix invalidates her consent under Section 375 of IPC or if this is simply a failed personal relationship that does not amount to a criminal offence.

The Court referred to Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra wherein the Supreme Court held that consent denotes an active will in mind of a person to permit the doing of the act complained of.

Similarly, the Apex Court in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra held that to establish whether the 'consent' was vitiated by a 'misconception of fact' arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. Firstly, the promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. Secondly, the false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.

Justice Panigrahi also relied upon a judgment rendered by him 2020 in G. Achyut Kumar v. State of Odisha, in which he had questioned the automatic extension of provisions of Section 90 of IPC (consent known to be given under misconception) to determine the effect of a consent under Section 375 of IPC. He had further held the law holding false promise to marriage as rape to be erroneous.

Upon going through the aforesaid precedents, the Court was of the considered opinion that the prosecutrix's consent was not vitiated by any misconception of fact. The fact that the relationship lasted nearly nine years, the Bench held, clearly shows that it was voluntary, making the invocation of Section 376 of the IPC questionable.

“The intervention of the court in this particular case was imperative to shield the criminal justice system from being wielded as an instrument of vengeance for the collapse of a personal relationship… Quashing the criminal proceedings is necessary to protect the integrity of the law and prevent it from being used to litigate personal disappointments or moral conflicts. The justice system is meant to address genuine crimes, not to serve as a battleground for failed relationships.”

Resultantly, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482, CrPC and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner.

Case Title: Manoj Kumar Munda v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No: CRLMC No. 4485 of 2024

Date of Judgment: February 14, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Acharya, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. J. Sahoo, Addl. Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. K. A. Guru, Advocate for the Prosecutrix

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 30