In a definitive ruling on the legal boundaries of consensual intimate Relationship , the Calcutta High Court has quashed a criminal prosecution involving charges of rape and forced abortion, clarifying that a long-term romantic fallout cannot be converted into a criminal case. The Court emphasized that a False Promise to Marry only constitutes a legal “misconception of fact” if the intention to deceive was present from the very beginning of the relationship. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the criminal justice system should not be utilized to prosecute individuals for a subsequent breach of promise arising from a failed relationship between two consenting adults.
The Legal Distinction: Breach of Promise vs. Deceptive Intent
The judgment in Anirban Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr. addresses a critical intersection of personal liberty and criminal law. The prosecution had alleged that the petitioner engaged in sexual acts under the pretext of marriage and later coerced the complainant into a medical termination of pregnancy. However, the High Court’s scrutiny of the case diary and travel records revealed a relationship spanning 2017 to 2022, characterized by mutual consent and shared experiences.
The Court noted that for a False Promise to Marry to vitiate consent under Section 376 of the IPC, the promise must be a “hoax” intended to procure sexual favors with no intent to fulfill the commitment. In this instance, the five-year duration and the parties’ conduct—including frequent travel to Goa and Digha—pointed toward a genuine, albeit failed, domestic arrangement rather than a calculated deception.
Judicial Metrics for Determining Valid Consent
| Legal Scenario | Classification of Consent | Judicial Outcome |
| Initial Deception | Consent obtained via fraud (Section 90 IPC) | Prosecution for Rape (Sec 376) |
| Prolonged Relationship | Consent given voluntarily over years | Quashing of Proceedings |
| Mutual Medical Decisions | Documented consent for medical procedures | Dismissal of Sec 313 (Abortion) |
| Soured Relationship | Subsequent refusal to marry | Civil Breach, not Criminal Offense |
Scrutiny of Forced Abortion and Coercion Allegations
The High Court also addressed the more severe allegations under Section 313 (causing miscarriage without consent) and Section 506 (criminal intimidation). Upon examining medical records, the Bench found that the complainant had voluntarily consented to the termination of the pregnancy, with the petitioner even acting as a signatory.
Justice Chatterjee Das observed that the complainant continued to live and travel with the petitioner for years after the alleged initial assault in 2018. This conduct was found to be fundamentally inconsistent with a narrative of ongoing coercion or lack of agency. The Court held that when an educated adult woman continues an intimate relationship for half a decade, she cannot later claim that her long-term consent was based on a “misconception” simply because the marriage did not materialize.
Preventing the Abuse of the Criminal Justice Process
Invoking the principles laid down in the landmark Bhajan Lal case, the Calcutta High Court ruled that continuing the prosecution would constitute a “sheer abuse of the process of court.” The Court emphasized that the inherent powers of the judiciary must be used to protect individuals from being victimized by the retrospective criminalization of consensual acts.
Referring to established Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that a “mere breach of promise” is a civil matter. To sustain a criminal charge, the prosecution must prove a “nefarious design” at the inception of the relationship. Without such proof, the foundational ingredients of Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC are absent, rendering the trial a futile exercise.
Broader Impact on Consensual Relationship Law in 2026
This ruling reinforces the evolving jurisprudence surrounding Consensual Relationship Law in India, particularly as the legal system transitions into the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) framework. It underscores the judiciary’s role as a gatekeeper, ensuring that criminal laws are not misapplied to personal disputes and failed social contracts.
The decision provides a clear legal shield for individuals in long-term relationships where the marriage promise was made in good faith but could not be fulfilled due to subsequent circumstances. By quashing the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur, the Calcutta High Court has affirmed that adult consent, once given freely over a prolonged period, cannot be revoked retrospectively to initiate a rape prosecution.
