Court clarifies legal interpretation of consent and breach of promise in adult relationships, dismisses charges as vexatious prosecution.
In a significant judgment, the Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava, has quashed the rape charges against Md. Saif Ali Ansari under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case, originating from an FIR lodged by Rabina Tabassum, alleged sexual exploitation under the pretext of marriage. The court's decision came on January 12, 2026, as it highlighted crucial distinctions in the legal interpretation of consent and false promises in consensual adult relationships.
The judgment addressed the application filed by Md. Saif Ali Ansari seeking to overturn the order dated November 17, 2021, which had rejected his discharge plea in the Sessions Trial No. 161 of 2021. The case stemmed from allegations that Ansari had engaged in a sexual relationship with the informant, Ms. Tabassum, under the guise of a marriage promise, which did not materialize.
The court, while examining the evidence, noted that both parties were in a consensual relationship for over a year, with the informant being a 25-year-old adult. It emphasized that the allegations did not demonstrate coercion or force, and the promise to marry was not made with an intent to deceive from the outset. Instead, the breakdown of the marriage promise was attributed to interference from the petitioner's family.
Justice Shrivastava underscored that a breach of promise due to unforeseen circumstances does not equate to a false promise to marry, which would constitute a misconception of fact under Section 90 of the IPC. The court further observed that the informant's consent was voluntary and informed, and thus, the charges under Section 376 IPC were not sustainable.
The judgment relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including cases like Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), which delineate the boundaries between consensual relationships and false promises. The court reiterated that the legal framework does not support criminal proceedings in cases where consensual relationships do not culminate in marriage.
The decision to quash the charges was also driven by the need to prevent vexatious and malicious prosecutions, as outlined in the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The court emphasized the responsibility of the judiciary to shield individuals from unwarranted legal harassment.
In conclusion, the Patna High Court's verdict clarifies the nuanced interpretation of consent in adult relationships, setting a precedent that consensual relationships, absent of deceitful intent at inception, do not fall under the purview of Section 376 IPC. The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding against the misuse of legal provisions in personal disputes.
Bottom Line:
Consent obtained under a false promise to marry differs from a consensual relationship where the promise to marry is breached due to unforeseen circumstances. A consensual relationship cannot be deemed rape solely because it did not culminate in marriage.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 375, 376, 90; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 227, 482
Md. Saif Ali Ansari v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2837724
