Introduction:

In X v. State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-35779-2025], the Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered an important judgment addressing the issue of consent in long-term relationships and allegations of sexual intercourse induced by deceit. The case was decided by a single bench of Justice Vinay Saraf, who quashed an FIR filed against an Army officer accused of engaging in sexual intercourse through deceitful means. The FIR had been registered under Section 69 and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deal respectively with sexual intercourse obtained through deceit and criminal intimidation. The complainant alleged that the accused had initially misrepresented himself as a bachelor and developed a physical relationship with her under the false promise of marriage. However, the Court found that the relationship had continued for more than a decade even after the complainant became aware that the accused was already married. The High Court observed that both individuals were highly educated and working in disciplined uniformed services—one serving in the Indian Army and the other employed as a police constable in the Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukt Organisation in Bhopal. In such circumstances, the Court held that it was difficult to believe that the complainant continued the relationship for nearly thirteen years without voluntary consent. The judgment examined the legal principles governing consent, false promises of marriage, and the circumstances under which consent can be said to be vitiated by a misconception of fact. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the allegations did not disclose the commission of an offence and therefore quashed the FIR, emphasizing that criminal law cannot be invoked to retrospectively transform a consensual relationship into a criminal act.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, an officer serving in the Indian Army, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR on the ground that the allegations were baseless and that the relationship between him and the complainant had been consensual from the beginning. Represented by Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal along with Advocate Awadhesh Kumar Ahirwar, the petitioner contended that the complainant was a mature and well-educated woman who had voluntarily engaged in a relationship with him for several years. According to the petitioner, the complainant was employed as a police constable in the Special Police Establishment under the Lokayukt Organisation in Bhopal and was therefore fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of her actions. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship began in December 2012 when the two met at an Army canteen in Bhopal. Over time, they developed a friendship which later evolved into a romantic and physical relationship. However, the counsel strongly denied the allegation that the petitioner had induced the complainant into the relationship by falsely portraying himself as a bachelor. The defence maintained that the petitioner had never made any promise of marriage to the complainant and that she was aware of his marital status from the early stages of their relationship. Even after learning that the petitioner was married, the complainant allegedly chose to continue the relationship voluntarily. According to the petitioner’s counsel, this fact alone demonstrated that the relationship was based on mutual consent rather than deception. The petitioner further argued that the complainant continued to meet him and maintain a relationship for approximately thirteen years without any protest or complaint. Such prolonged association, the counsel submitted, clearly indicated that the complainant was a willing participant in the relationship. It was contended that if the relationship had truly been based on deceit or coercion, the complainant would have raised objections or approached the authorities much earlier. The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out that the complaint was filed only in February 2025, after the complainant allegedly discovered that the petitioner was in contact with other women. According to the defence, this circumstance suggested that the complaint was motivated by personal grievances arising out of a deteriorating relationship rather than by any genuine criminal wrongdoing. Another significant argument advanced by the petitioner concerned the legal requirements for establishing the offence of sexual intercourse obtained through deceitful means. The counsel submitted that the mere existence of a romantic relationship or the breakdown of such a relationship does not automatically give rise to criminal liability. In order to establish the offence, it must be shown that the accused made a false promise of marriage with no intention of fulfilling it and that such promise directly influenced the complainant’s decision to engage in the sexual act. In the present case, the defence argued that no such evidence existed. The petitioner therefore requested the Court to exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR and prevent the misuse of criminal law in a matter that essentially involved a consensual relationship between two adults.

Arguments of the Respondent:

The State of Madhya Pradesh opposed the petition for quashing the FIR and argued that the allegations made by the complainant disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. Represented by Advocate Nalini Gurung, the State contended that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant had initially been established on the basis of false representations. According to the prosecution, the petitioner had portrayed himself as a bachelor when he first met the complainant in 2012 and had thereby induced her into developing a relationship with him. The prosecution submitted that the complainant later discovered that the petitioner was already married. When confronted, the petitioner allegedly attempted to justify his conduct by claiming that his wife had a bad character and that he was living separately from her. The prosecution further alleged that the petitioner had assured the complainant that he would eventually divorce his wife and marry her. These assurances, according to the State, persuaded the complainant to continue the relationship despite knowing that the petitioner was married. The prosecution argued that such promises created a false belief in the mind of the complainant and influenced her decision to maintain a physical relationship with the petitioner. The State therefore contended that the complainant’s consent had been obtained under a misconception of fact, which is recognized under criminal law as vitiating consent. The prosecution also emphasized that the complainant had approached the authorities only after discovering in February 2025 that the petitioner was allegedly maintaining similar relationships with other women and making identical promises to them. According to the State, this revelation prompted the complainant to realize that the assurances given by the petitioner had been dishonest and manipulative. On this basis, the prosecution argued that the ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita were satisfied. The State also contended that the Court should not interfere with the investigation at an early stage and that the truth of the allegations should be determined during trial. It was argued that quashing the FIR prematurely would deprive the complainant of an opportunity to present evidence and seek justice through the judicial process.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully examining the submissions of both parties and reviewing the material placed on record, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against the Army officer. Justice Vinay Saraf delivered a detailed judgment analyzing the legal principles governing consent and the circumstances under which a promise of marriage can be considered fraudulent. The Court first noted that the relationship between the parties began in 2012 and continued for nearly thirteen years. During this period, the complainant and the petitioner maintained a close association and repeatedly met each other. The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant had discovered as early as 2013 that the petitioner was already married. Despite this knowledge, the complainant continued to maintain the relationship for more than a decade. According to the Court, this conduct raised serious doubts about the allegation that the relationship was based on deception. The Court emphasized that the concept of consent under criminal law requires careful analysis. Referring to the principles underlying Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court observed that consent must involve an active and reasoned decision by the woman to participate in the act. When a woman consents to a relationship after fully understanding the circumstances, such consent cannot later be treated as invalid merely because the relationship eventually fails. Justice Saraf further explained that in cases involving allegations of sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage, two essential conditions must be satisfied in order to establish that the consent was vitiated by a misconception of fact. First, the promise of marriage must have been false at the time it was made, meaning that the accused never intended to fulfill it. Second, the false promise must have been directly connected to the complainant’s decision to engage in the sexual act. If these conditions are not satisfied, the relationship cannot be treated as criminal. Applying these principles to the present case, the Court observed that the complainant had continued the relationship even after discovering that the petitioner was married. The Court found it difficult to believe that a highly educated woman working in the police department would maintain such a prolonged relationship without voluntary consent. The Court also observed that both parties were employed in uniformed services and were therefore expected to possess a clear understanding of their actions and responsibilities. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR did not establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The Court therefore held that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to misuse of the legal process. Consequently, the FIR was quashed and the petition was allowed.