Consensual adult relationship and false promise to marry: no prima facie rape, cheating, or SC/ST offence, so quashing was justified.

A consensual relationship between adults does not amount to rape under Section 376(2)(b) IPC unless the promise to marry was false from the inception and used only to secure sexual access; on the pleaded facts, the complainant entered the relationship consciously, so no prima facie rape case was made out. The FIR also lacked a specific factual basis for cheating under Section 420 IPC or for the caste-based offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, so the essential ingredients of those offences were absent. In these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution would be an abuse of process and quashing under Section 482 CrPC was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the FIR and chargesheet disclosed a prima facie offence of rape under Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of a promise to marry and alleged consent; (ii) Whether the allegations disclosed offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, warranting refusal to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the FIR and chargesheet disclosed a prima facie offence of rape under Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of a promise to marry and alleged consent.

Analysis: The allegations showed a long-standing relationship between educated adults working at the same health centre, living together as husband and wife at different places. The complainant stated that she agreed to the relationship because she wanted companionship and entered into it consciously. The legal distinction between rape and consensual sexual relations depends on whether consent was vitiated by misconception of fact or whether there was merely a breach of promise to marry. Consent under Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is not vitiated unless the promise was false from inception and intended only to obtain sexual access. On the pleaded facts, the relationship reflected conscious participation rather than passive submission or deceitful inducement.

Conclusion: No prima facie case of rape under Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations disclosed offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, warranting refusal to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The FIR did not disclose any specific factual foundation showing cheating, dishonest inducement at inception, or any act attracting the caste-based offence alleged under the SC/ST Act. In the absence of material constituting those offences, continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of the criminal process. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available where the uncontroverted allegations fail to disclose an offence and quashing is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The allegations under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not made out, and quashing was justified.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were unsustainable on the pleaded facts, and the High Court's refusal to quash was set aside, resulting in termination of the FIR and chargesheet against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A consensual sexual relationship between adults, entered into consciously and not on a promise shown to be false from the inception, does not constitute rape on the ground of misconception of fact, and criminal proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not disclose the essential ingredients of the charged offences.

---