Grown-Up Married Lady Consenting To Physical Relationship Is Not An Act Induced By Misconception Of Fact: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash the FIR under Section 376(2) of the IPC and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

The Single Bench of Justice N.S.Shekhawat stated, “Still further, when the husband threatened that he would go for a divorce, she agreed to disclose the facts to him, and later on, it has been alleged that she was blackmailed by the petitioner. However, during the course of arguments, learned State counsel has admitted that there is no video or audio evidence with the help of which she could be blackmailed by the petitioner. Consequently, it is apparent that the ingredients of the offence under Section 375 IPC in the present case were not established. In fact, if a fully grown-up lady consents to the act of sexual intercourse and continues to indulge in such activity, it is an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by misconception of fact. ”

Senior Advocate R. S. Bains represented the Petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor Sharmila Sharma represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The FIR was registered based on the complaint filed by the husband of the victim/prosecutrix, alleging illicit relations between the petitioner and his wife. The husband alleged that his son’s coach (petitioner) developed a friendly relationship with his wife. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner forcibly made physical relations with his wife and then started blackmailing and threatening her. After the complainant questioned the abortion undergone by his wife, the wife told him about the facts. The complainant had further stated that the petitioner was blackmailing his wife, and the complainant apprehended a threat from him.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the IPC. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner had forced himself on her without her consent and engaged in sexual intercourse. The Bench explained that Section 375 of IPC lays down that a person is said to have committed rape if he performs any of the sexual acts mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d), without the consent of a woman. Further, in terms of Section 90 of IPC, if a consent is given under a misconception of fact, such consent is not a consent in the eyes of the law and cannot be considered lawful and voluntary.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecutrix, who was otherwise a major person and a qualified doctor with two grown-up children, was unable to discover the deceitful/forceful behaviour of the petitioner, who continued to have sexual relations with her for a long period. “The only reasonable inference which can be drawn in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case is that respondent No. 3 and the petitioner had developed a friendship, and later on, they also developed a physical relationship”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the ingredients of the offence under Section 375 IPC were not established, as it was a case where a fully grown-up lady consented to the act of sexual intercourse and continued to indulge in such activity. The same was an act of promiscuity on her part and not an act induced by a misconception of fact

Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench quashed the FIR filed under Section 376(2) IPC and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Cause Title: ABC v. State of U.T., Chandigarh (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:044912)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate R. S. Bains, Advocates Sumeet Singh, Utsav Singh Bains

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Sharmila Sharma, Advocate Charanpreet Singh

Click here to read/download Order