SXXXX v. State of Haryana, 2025
The Court emphasized that Section 90 IPC does not apply where a fully mature, educated, married woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations.
Judgement Details
Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Date of Decision
18 November 2025
Judges
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The prosecutrix, a 35-year-old lawyer, married with an eight-year-old child and having disputes with her husband, alleged that the accused (also a lawyer) engaged in a sexual relationship with her on the pretext of marriage.
-
She claimed that her family members encouraged this relationship but later engaged her younger sister to the accused.
-
She accused the petitioner, his father, and her own family members of misleading her.
-
Accusations included repeated rape, criminal intimidation, and breach of trust.
-
The FIR, however, lacked dates, times, or specific details regarding the alleged incidents.
-
The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR.
Issues
-
Whether a married, mature, educated woman can claim inducement into sexual relations on the promise of marriage?
-
Whether the allegations under Section 376(2)(n) IPC were supported by sufficient details or evidence?
-
Whether the allegations of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC were substantiated?
-
Whether the FIR demonstrated misuse or improvement of facts in later statements?
Judgement
-
The Court held that a legally married, mature, highly educated woman cannot be induced into sexual relations on a promise of marriage, and therefore the allegation of rape under Section 376(2)(n) was inconceivable.
-
The Court found the relationship consensual, not the result of deception or misconception of fact.
-
Serious allegations made by the prosecutrix against multiple family members were found to be false during investigation.
-
The FIR and Section 164 CrPC statements contained significant improvements, lacked material particulars, and did not support the offence of rape.
-
The allegation under Section 506 IPC lacked specific date, place, or words, rendering the charge unsustainable.
-
Consequently, the FIR under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506, 180 IPC was quashed.
Held
-
Consent of the prosecutrix was not vitiated by misconception of fact; therefore rape is not made out.
-
The FIR lacked specificity and credibility; allegations were improved over time.
-
No ingredients of criminal intimidation were satisfied.
-
FIR quashed.
Analysis
-
The Court emphasized that Section 90 IPC does not apply where a fully mature, educated, married woman voluntarily engages in sexual relations.
-
The prosecutrix was:
-
35 years old,
-
a practicing advocate,
-
aware of her subsisting marriage,
-
and aware that petitioner was her legal counsel, handling her case under Section 498-A IPC.
-
-
Thus, she was in a position of full awareness, not vulnerability.
-
The Court found her version implausible, especially the idea that she believed in the promise of marriage while still legally married.
-
No date, time, or place of alleged rape was provided.
-
Initial complaint did not mention rape on pretext of marriage this emerged only in a later improved version under Section 164 CrPC.
-
Such improvements raised serious doubts about genuineness.
-
Allegations against her parents, siblings, husband, and petitioner’s father were found false during investigation, indicating misuse of the criminal process.
-
The prosecution appeared motivated by emotional backlash, particularly after the petitioner’s engagement to her sister.
-
The Court recognized a pattern of retaliatory complaint.
-
Consent of a married adult woman, especially one well-versed in law, cannot be deemed induced by promise of marriage.
-
Courts should scrutinize improved statements carefully.
-
FIRs lacking particulars cannot sustain grave charges like rape.