Intention Of Person Accused U/s. 376 IPC At Time Of Making Alleged Promise Of Marriage Can Only Be Conclusively Determined At Trial Stage: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition for quashing an FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC.

The Delhi High Court has held that the intention of a person accused under Section 376 of the IPC at the time of making the alleged promise of marriage can only be conclusively determined at the stage of a trial.
The Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing an FIR registered under Section 376 of the IPC holding that the allegations made in said FIR and the statement made by the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC discloses a prima facie case. The Court had to determine whether the allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 376 of the IPC against the Petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held, “The intention of the petitioner at the time of making the alleged promise remains a matter of dispute and cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. It is a factual question that requires evidence to be tested during trial. While the allegations raise a prima facie case warranting further judicial scrutiny, the Court, at this juncture, cannot definitively conclude that the petitioner acted with mala fide intent.”
Advocate Jatan Singh represented the Petitioner, while APP Satish Kumar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The victim and the Petitioner were in a long-term relationship. The FIR lodged by the victim alleged that the Petitioner coerced her into a physical relationship on the false promise of marriage. The petitioner allegedly assured the prosecutrix that he would marry her, leading her to consent to sexual relations at various locations, including the Petitioner’s residence and hotels booked by the victim.
According to the complaint, the Petitioner invited the victim to leave her home and elope with him. However, instead of proceeding with marriage, he allegedly dropped her at her sister’s house, stating that he needed to convince his family first. Thereafter, he stopped communication, changed his phone number, and ignored her attempts to contact him. The victim subsequently filed the FIR.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court took note of the Petitioner’s contention that there was no prima facie case for the commission of the offence under Section 376 of the IPC made out against him as both parties entered into a physical relationship with mutual consent.
The Bench explained that “for a false promise to vitiate consent, it must be shown that firstly, the promise was made in bad faith with the sole intent of deceitfully inducing the prosecutrix to enter into a physical relationship and secondly, the false promise must have been of immediate relevance such that it directly influenced the victim‟s decision to engage in the said sexual act with the accused.”
The Court further took note of the Statement of the Petitioner’s landlord who confirmed that the victim frequently visited the premises and that both parties presented themselves as a married couple.
“While a mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute a criminal offence, a promise made without any intention to fulfill it from the beginning may vitiate consent under Section 90 of the IPC,” the Bench explained.
“The nature of the relationship between the parties is a crucial factor in determining whether any promise of marriage was made and whether the respondent‟s consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact,” it stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “Therefore, in view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the allegations made by the respondent disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 376 of the IPC, warranting further judicial inquiry through trial.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Divyansh Bajpai v. The State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:371)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Jatan Singh
Respondents: APP Satish Kumar; Advocate Anand Verdhan Maitriya