The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a rape on false promise to marry case registered against an Army Officer after noting that both the accused and the complainant were educated and had maintained a 12-year-long relationship. The High Court also did not find it convincing that any woman who is working in a Police Department would continue to maintain a prolonged physical relationship in the absence of voluntary consent on her part.

The petitioner had approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashment of the first information report lodged by the respondent complainant under Section 351(2) and 69 of the BNS, 2023.

The Single Bench of Justice Vinay Saraf held, “It is not convincible that the complainant or any woman who is working in a Police Department would continue to meet the petitioner or maintained a prolonged physical relationship with him in the absence of voluntary consent on her part. The petitioner and the complainant both are highly educated and working in uniformed services therefore and it cannot be believed that on the pretext of false marriage the complainant developed the physical relationship with the petitioner and continued the same without any demur or objection even after knowing the fact that the petitioner is already married.”

Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal represented the Petitioner, while Panel Lawyer Nalini Gurung represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the petitioner met the complainant in the year 2012 in an Army Canteen, and thereafter the petitioner and the complainant started having telephonic conversations. It was alleged that the petitioner made a false promise of marriage to the complainant by representing that he was a bachelor and developed physical relations with the complainant on the pretext of marriage. As per the FIR in the year 2013, the complainant came to know that the petitioner was already married, but when she enquired of the petitioner, he told her that he was not living together with his wife. He assured that he would marry the complainant. The complainant and the petitioner continued their relationship until 2025, when the complainant came to know that the petitioner was in contact with other ladies also and gave them assurances in a similar manner.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner and the complainant had known each other since 2012, and they developed physical relations which continued for 12 to 13 years. It was further noticed that they are well educated. The complainant is working as a lady Constable in the Special Police Establishment, whereas the petitioner is working in the Indian Army.

The Bench explained, “The “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.”

The Bench came to the conclusion that the failure of the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant led to the registration of the FIR to pressurise the petitioner to continue the relationship. “Considering the long relationship between the petitioner and complainant it is difficult to believe that the petitioner has developed the physical relations on the basis of a false pretext of marriage and committed the rape”, it added.

Finding the FIR to be an abuse of the process of law, the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the FIR as well as the proceedings emanating therefrom.

Cause Title: A v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:19601)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Ahirwar

Respondent: Panel Lawyer Nalini Gurung, Advocate Dinesh Tripathi

Click here to read/download Order






Madhya Pradesh HCJustice Vinay Saraf

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.