Long Physical Relationship Indicates Consent, Not Misconception: Jharkhand HC

In a decisive blow against the criminalization of failed romantic relationships, the High Court has ruled that a prolonged physical relationship between consenting adults cannot be construed as sexual exploitation on the false promise of marriage.

Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary quashed a rape case involving an allegation under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that an unfulfilled promise to marry does not automatically amount to a false promise made at the inception of a relationship.

Court's Analysis on Consent and False Promise

Examining the rival submissions and the materials on record, the Court observed that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner lacked the intention to marry at the time the relationship commenced. Citing established precedents, the Court noted that a distinction must be drawn between a false promise made to deceive a woman into sexual relations and a mere breach of promise to marry.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the entire allegations made by the informant, even if are considered to be true in their entirety, at the most the same discloses a case of consensual physical relationship between the parties and is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law..."

The Court has following directions:

"Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. and the cognizance order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in connection with Mahila (Sadar) P.S. Case No.12 of 2023 corresponding to G.R. No.1945 of 2024, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner named above."

Background

The dispute stemmed from an FIR lodged under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code following a complaint by the informant-victim. The petitioner and the informant had met in 2016, following which they entered into a romantic relationship that lasted for over seven years. The informant alleged that the petitioner sexually exploited her on the promise of marriage, but eventually switched off his phone in April 2023 and, along with his family, refused to solemnize the marriage.

The police completed the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet, following which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, took cognizance of the offence on August 16, 2024. The petitioner approached the High Court invoking Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to quash the criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Mahesh Damu Khare vs. State of Maharashtra & Another ( "(2024) 11 SCC 398": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 932), submitting that a continuous consensual physical relationship for seven years among adults negates the existence of a false promise. Reiteration was also made to Pramod Suryabhan Pawan vs. State of Maharashtra & Another ( "(2019) 9 SCC 608": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2769) to distinguish between a breach of promise and a false promise from inception. Finding that the continuation of the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire criminal proceeding, FIR, and cognizance order against the petitioner.

Case Details:
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No.915 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:26065
Case Title: Lalu Mahtha @ Lalu Mahta v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sudeep Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Addl.P.P. (for State); None (for O.P. No.2)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 2722