The Jharkhand High Court has weighed in on a scenario that keeps showing up in courtrooms, a long relationship ends and one side files a rape case against the other. In a recent order, the court made clear that a consensual physical relationship between two adults that lasted seven years cannot be branded rape simply because marriage never followed. On that basis, the court quashed the entire FIR and the criminal proceedings that had been launched against the accused.
Seven Years Together, Then a Broken Promise
According to the case details, the petitioner and the woman who filed the complaint lived together in a live-in relationship for close to seven years. The woman alleged that the man kept promising marriage throughout this period. Things changed in April 2023, when the man switched off his phone and his family refused to agree to the marriage. Following this, the woman lodged a police complaint, and the police registered a case under Section 376, completed their investigation and filed a chargesheet in court. The accused challenged the entire proceeding before the Jharkhand High Court, seeking to have the FIR and further action quashed. The matter was heard by a single bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary.
Supreme Court Precedent: A Promise Is 'False' Only If the Intent Was Bad From the Start
In his order, Justice Choudhary referred to several earlier Supreme Court rulings, including the case of Mahesh Damu Khare versus State of Maharashtra. These rulings have repeatedly held that a promise of marriage can only be treated as a 'false promise' in law if the person making it never intended to keep it at the time it was made. If the promise was made in good faith and simply could not be honoured later because of changed circumstances or a strained relationship, it does not amount to rape. Applying this principle to the case at hand, the High Court held that even taking the woman's allegations at face value, they establish, at most, a consensual physical relationship between two adults. According to the court, such facts do not satisfy the ingredients needed to constitute an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n). The court also pointed out that there is no concrete allegation on record proving that the accused had a deceptive intention from the very beginning. The fact that the relationship continued for seven years without any protest or complaint, the court said, is itself an indicator that it was built on consent.
Consent Versus Deception: Where the Law Draws the Line
Indian law is fairly clear on the question of consent, two adults are free to enter a physical relationship of their own will, and that by itself is no crime. But if that consent rests on deception, misunderstanding or coercion, it is not treated as valid consent in the eyes of the law. This is the fine line on which most rape-on-promise-of-marriage cases turn. Such disputes tend to surface when a long relationship hits a rough patch and one side ends up filing a rape case. Courts tread carefully in these situations, both to prevent misuse of the law and to make sure that a genuine victim of deception still gets justice. In this case, the court found that the sheer length of the relationship, seven years, worked in favour of establishing consent. Advocate Sudeep Ranjan represented the accused and ultimately won the case. The court observed in its order that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and accordingly quashed the FIR, the cognizance order and all further proceedings connected to it.
What This Means for the Growing Trend of Live-In Relationships
The ruling is unlikely to stay confined to this one case, it could serve as an important precedent for live-in relationships and for rape cases built around broken marriage promises. A growing number of young couples are choosing to live together before marriage, but when such relationships break down, legal disputes often follow. The Jharkhand High Court's stand sends a clear signal, a consensual relationship that lasted years cannot easily be given a criminal colour after it ends, unless there is solid evidence that the intent to deceive existed right from the start.
