Delhi High Court: Educated & Independent Woman Continuing To Engage In Relationship With Knowledge Of Man’s Marital Status Can’t Be Said To Be Misled In Law

The Delhi High Court observed that an educated and independent woman who willingly continues to engage in a relationship even with knowledge of a man’s marital status, cannot be said to be misled or exploited in law.

The Court observed thus in a Petition filed by the accused seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “The law governing offence of rape is intended to protect the bodily integrity and autonomy of women and to punish those who exploit them by force or by deception which vitiates free consent. It is not designed to become a tool in disputes where two consenting adults, fully aware of their choices and the attendant consequences, subsequently fall apart. Adults entering into intimate relationships must take responsibility for the decisions they voluntarily make, including the emotional, social, or legal risks inherent in such relationships. When a complainant, being an educated and independent woman, willingly continues to engage in such a relationship even with knowledge of the petitioner’s marital status, it cannot thereafter be said that she was misled or exploited in law.”

The Bench said that the criminal justice system is increasingly being burdened with FIRs for commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC where allegations of sexual exploitation are levelled on the ground of false promise of marriage, often after prolonged periods of consensual relationships.

Senior Advocate Suryanarayan Singh appeared for the Petitioner while APP Naresh Kumar Chahar appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

A complaint was received from a woman (Complainant) aged 24 years alleging that she was subjected to severe exploitation, physical, emotional, and sexual harassment by the Petitioner-accused under the false pretext of marriage, coupled with fraud and cheating. It was stated that the Complainant first met the accused in January 2023 at a hotel in presence of their respective families. Allegedly, at the very first meeting, a dowry demand of Rs. 1 crore was raised and thereafter, the accused began contacting the Complainant frequently, portraying himself as genuine and supportive of her academic pursuits, while assuring her repeatedly of marriage. These assurances created a foundation of trust and though the Complainant initially resisted his advances, he had allegedly manipulated her emotionally and persuaded her by reiterating his promise of marriage. It was alleged that during a trip to Varanasi, they both stayed in a hotel where he had established physical relations with her on the false assurance of marriage.

Thereafter also, he had allegedly taken her to several places and continued sexual relations with her under the same pretext. It was further alleged that subsequently, the accused started avoiding her calls and meetings. Later, she came to know that he had married another woman allegedly in consideration of dowry of Rs. 60 lakhs, without disclosing the same to her family. When confronted, the accused claimed that his marriage was against his will and had allegedly continued to manipulate the Complainant emotionally even during her pregnancy, Thereafter, he had come to Delhi, met the Complainant in a hotel and again established physical relations with her, assuring her that he would leave his wife and take responsibility for her and their unborn child. The sexual relations between both continued. It was also alleged that he had threatened her and her family with dire consequences, provoked her to commit suicide, and subjected her to mental harassment. Resultantly, mediation proceedings took place at the Women’s Cell during which the accused had denied even knowing the Complainant. Based on this, an FIR was registered and the accused was arrested.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The record shows that both parties were adults at all relevant times. The complainant was not only a major but also an educated and independent woman, pursuing higher academic goals including preparation for the UPSC examination, and residing in Delhi even after the marriage ceremony had been performed at Arya Samaj Mandir, Mithapur, Bihar, on 21.01.2024. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no intention of marrying her, since the material demonstrates that he did, in fact, marry her.”

The Court added that it cannot be held that the Complainant had been compelled into a sexual relationship on the false pretext of marriage, particularly when she herself continued to meet the accused and maintained sexual relations with him even after becoming aware that he had contracted another marriage.

“If it is the complainant’s case, as alleged in the FIR, that no marriage had actually been solemnised at Arya Samaj Mandir and that only a backdated certificate had been fabricated, it remains unexplained why she continued to engage in sexual relations with the petitioner even after knowing that he had married another woman, thereby making a second marriage with her legally impossible”, it said.

The Court clarified that the parties will be at liberty to pursue their respective rights and remedies in appropriate proceedings before the competent jurisdiction as the limited issue before the Court is whether the FIR in question discloses the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 376 of IPC, and in the facts of the present case, the answer is clearly in the negative.

“Many such cases come before the Courts where the parties, being majors, have voluntarily engaged in sexual relations over a span of time, and when the relationship eventually fails – whether due to incompatibility or any other differences – allegations of rape are pressed. To permit every such failed relationship to be converted into a criminal prosecution for rape would be contrary not only to the constitutional vision of justice, but also to the very spirit and object of the law of sexual offences”, it further remarked.

The Court added that the role of the Court is not to sit in Judgment over the morality of such relationships, nor to enforce notions of social propriety between consenting adults and at the same time, the law cannot be stretched to shield a party from the foreseeable consequences of choices made consciously and repeatedly.

Conclusion

The Court also noted, “To do so would not only trivialize the gravity of genuine cases of sexual assault but would also risk turning the solemn remedy of criminal law into an instrument of vengeance or leverage. The present case is a clear example of such a situation, where a consensual relationship, albeit complicated, cannot be clothed with the allegation of rape merely because the relationship did not culminate in the manner one party desired.”

The Court, therefore, reiterated and concluded that the role of the Court is to adjudicate a case before it, as per law and not preach as to whether such kinds of relationships are morally right or to impose social norms on consenting adults and at the same time, the law cannot be used to protect a party from the predictable outcomes of his or her deliberate and repeated decisions.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR against the accused.

Cause Title- Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7721)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Suryanarayan Singh, Advocates Raman Yadav, Priyam Kaushik, Aashi Arora, Harshith Pottangi, Akriti Chaturvedi, and Ritika Arora.

Respondents: APP Naresh Kumar Chahar

Click here to read/download the Judgment