The facts indicate a complex relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, who was a co-worker at an IT company in Mumbai. Their relationship reportedly evolved from friendship to a proposal of marriage, with interactions between both families. However, significant issues arose leading to serious allegations.

Relationship Development: The petitioner and the respondent became acquainted in 2022, eventually leading to a proposal of marriage.

Allegations of Rape: On December 14, 2022, the petitioner allegedly took the respondent to his home and established a sexual relationship, despite her refusal.

Engagement and Dowry Demands: By February 2023, both parties agreed to marry, culminating in an engagement ceremony in June 2023. However, the respondent’s family faced demands for dowry, including cash and expensive gifts, which led to tensions.

Termination of Relationship: On January 12, 2024, the petitioner informed the respondent that he was unable to marry her, despite previous assurances. This led to the respondent filing the FIR, claiming she was coerced into a sexual relationship under the false promise of marriage.

Petitioner’s Defense: The petitioner’s counsel argued for the quashing of the FIR, asserting that the relationship was consensual and that the case represented a breach of promise rather than a false promise. The counsel also suggested that the respondent was attempting to extort money.

State’s Argument: The state’s counsel presented corroborative evidence, including witness statements and WhatsApp conversations, indicating that the sexual relationship was predicated on promises of marriage. They argued that the respondent’s consent was vitiated by this misconception, supporting the allegations made in the FIR.

The court emphasized the need to distinguish between a false promise and a breach of promise to marry. It cited previous Supreme Court rulings that clarify that consent obtained under a misconception of fact—especially regarding promises of marriage—can constitute rape.

The court found the following:

Misconception of Fact: The respondent believed that the petitioner intended to marry her, which influenced her decision to engage in the relationship. This misconception rendered her consent ineffective.

Demand for Dowry: Evidence indicated that the petitioner and his family made significant dowry demands, contributing to the ultimate breakdown of the relationship.

Legal Precedents: Citing relevant case law, the court underscored that the nature of consent in sexual relations must be critically examined, especially in light of promises made by one party.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner’s plea to quash the FIR, reinforcing the legal principle that consent obtained under false pretenses is not valid. The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of genuine intent in promises of marriage and the legal protections afforded to individuals against exploitation.

This case illustrates the complex intersection of personal relationships and legal implications, highlighting the judiciary's role in addressing and adjudicating allegations of sexual misconduct and breach of trust.