XXX v. XXXX
The judgment emphasizes judicial restraint in criminalising private consensual conduct between adults where evidence of coercion or fraud is absent.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
23 September 2025
Judges
Justice Kirti Singh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The complainant woman and the accused were in a long-standing relationship and got engaged after a roka ceremony.
-
During the courtship, they entered into a consensual sexual relationship.
-
The wedding was fixed for November 2024, but later called off due to irreconcilable differences between the families.
-
The complainant filed an FIR alleging rape under Section 376(2)(n), claiming the physical relationship was based on a false promise of marriage.
-
The accused approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR, asserting the relationship was consensual, and the intent to marry was genuine at all times.
Issues
-
Whether consensual sex between adults can be construed as rape when the marriage ultimately does not take place?
-
Whether the promise of marriage was made fraudulently to induce sexual relations?
Held
-
The Court found no evidence of deceitful intent or false promise at the time of consent.
-
The FIR was a result of bitterness following the failed engagement and did not reflect a case of sexual assault.
-
Filing of such criminal cases in the context of broken relationships was found to be a misuse of legal process.
Analysis
-
The Court rightly followed Supreme Court precedents, including:
-
Amol Bhagwal Nehul v. State of Maharashtra – Held that a breach of promise to marry does not amount to rape without proof of fraudulent intent.
-
Jothiragawan v. State – Reiterated the requirement of mens rea (fraudulent intention) at the time of securing consent.
-
-
The judgment emphasizes judicial restraint in criminalising private consensual conduct between adults where evidence of coercion or fraud is absent.
-
It warns against giving a “criminal colour” to failed relationships, which could erode the sanctity of consent and misuse rape provisions.
-
Encourages safeguarding due process while protecting genuine victims, by maintaining the distinction between rape and consensual sex in good faith relationships.