CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 $~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010420602023 + CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 & CRL.M.A. 28585/2023, CRL.M.A. 14140/2024 & CRL.M.A. 2884/2026 HIMANSHU CHOUDHARY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar and Ms. Akanksha Singh, Advs. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP with Ms. Ritu Lavania, Adv. W/SI Kiran Yadav, PS Fatehpur Beri, South District CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 16.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CrPC’) seeks quashing of FIR No. 317/2023, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Beri under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), and the proceedings emanating therefrom. BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2/complainant came in contact through a dating application and thereafter started meeting each other. As per the complaint forming the basis of the FIR, on 09.04.2023, the complainant This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:30:21 CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 visited the rented accommodation of the Petitioner at Lado Sarai, New Delhi, where the parties established physical relations with mutual consent. The complainant thereafter became pregnant. It is alleged that the Petitioner assured her that he would marry her, though the marriage could not take place immediately and the consent of their respective families would have to be obtained. The pregnancy was thereafter terminated by taking medicines with mutual consent and the physical relationship between the parties continued. 4. The complainant further alleges that on 27.07.2023, the Petitioner came to her room and the parties again established physical relations. Thereafter, the Petitioner allegedly stated that he did not wish to marry her, though upon being persuaded, he again agreed to do so. According to the complainant, on the following day, i.e., 28.07.2023, the Petitioner again came to her room and forcibly established physical relations with her, following which he refused to marry her and left. On 29.07.2023, the complainant made a PCR call at about 10:45 PM, following which the present FIR came to be registered. 5. During investigation, the complainant was medically examined at AIIMS and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were recorded. The Petitioner joined the investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted to him and, upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed. The case thereafter came to be committed to the Court of Sessions. SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARITES 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties was consensual from its inception and that the first physical relationship admittedly preceded the alleged promise of marriage. Reliance is also placed upon the WhatsApp communications, call records, the initial This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:30:21 CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 complaint made to the police and the alleged inconsistencies between the complaint, the statement under Section 164 CrPC and the examination-in- chief of the complainant to contend that the subsequent allegation of force is an improvement. Reference is also made to a previous similar complaint allegedly lodged by Respondent No. 2. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance upon Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608; Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2024 INSC 879; Nitin B. Nikhare v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1889/2024, decided on 21.01.2025, and Kunal Rameshbhai Kalyani v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 INSC 987. 8. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2 opposes the petition and submits that the consent of the complainant was obtained on the inducement extended by the Petitioner. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 10. The principal case of the Petitioner is that the relationship between the parties was consensual and that the first physical relationship on 09.04.2023 admittedly preceded the alleged promise of marriage. The legal position that every breach of a promise to marry does not amount to rape is well settled. As held in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2019) 9 SCC 608, where consent is alleged to have been obtained on a promise of marriage, the promise must have been false when made and must bear a direct nexus with the consent given for the sexual act. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:30:21 CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 11. However, the present FIR is not founded merely upon an allegation that the complainant consented to a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage. The complaint specifically alleges that on 28.07.2023, the Petitioner forcibly established physical relations with Respondent No. 2. The police record further reflects that on 29.07.2023, Respondent No. 2 made a PCR call, following which the present FIR came to be registered. 12. Therefore, the admitted consensual nature of the earlier relationship does not, by itself, conclude the issue. Whether the physical relationship on 28.07.2023 was consensual, as asserted by the Petitioner, or without consent, as alleged by Respondent No. 2, is a disputed question which cannot be determined without appreciation of evidence. 13. The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon the WhatsApp communications, call records, the initial complaint, the alleged interpolation therein, the material concerning the medical examination and the alleged inconsistencies between the complaint, statement under Section 164 CrPC and the testimony of Respondent No. 2 would require this Court to assess the reliability and evidentiary worth of the competing versions. Such an exercise is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 14. In Chandra Mani Mahaur & Ors. v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr., CRL.M.C. 6304/2026, this Court held that where the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose specific circumstances relating to absence of consent, the prosecution cannot, at the threshold, be reduced merely to a failed consensual relationship. Whether such allegations are ultimately proved is a matter for trial. It was further held that issues concerning the quality of consent require appreciation of evidence at trial. 15. The reliance upon Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2024 INSC 879, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:30:21 CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 also does not advance the case of the Petitioner. In Prashant (supra), though an allegation of forcible sexual relations had been made, the Supreme Court noticed that the parties continued to meet over a prolonged period thereafter and no complaint was lodged during that period. On those facts, the relationship was found to be consensual. In the present case, the allegation of forcible intercourse pertains to 28.07.2023 and the PCR call and registration of the FIR followed on 29.07.2023. The factual foundation is, therefore, materially different. 16. The remaining judgments relied upon by the Petitioner were rendered on their respective facts, where the Court found the relationship to be consensual or the ingredients of the offence in question to be otherwise absent. They do not warrant quashing where a separate and specific allegation of sexual intercourse without consent survives for adjudication. 17. Likewise, the police record concerning the initial complaint, including the endorsement of “Compromise”, the previous similar complaint referred to by the Petitioner and the other circumstances relied upon by him may constitute matters of defence, but their effect can be determined only upon appreciation of evidence. The investigation in the present case has been completed and a chargesheet has already been filed. 18. This Court is conscious that, according to the FIR itself, the physical relationship on 09.04.2023 was consensual and the alleged promise of marriage was made thereafter. No finding is, therefore, being returned that the initial physical relationship was induced by a false promise of marriage. The present petition fails for the narrower reason that the record contains a distinct allegation of forcible intercourse on 28.07.2023, the truth or falsity of which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:30:21 CRL.M.C. 7669/2023 19. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR No. 317/2023 or the proceedings emanating therefrom. 20. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 21. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed independently, on the basis of the evidence before it and in accordance with law. 22. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2026/JYH/m This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2026 at 11:30:21