The Delhi High Court has emphasized that consent in establishing physical relations by a woman should not be considered misconceived unless there is substantial evidence proving a false promise of marriage.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta made this observation while dismissing a rape case against a man. He noted that the issue had been resolved amicably between the man and the woman involved, who have since married each other.

"It is pertinent to observe that whenever a woman makes a reasoned choice to establish physical relations after fully understanding the consequences of such action, the 'consent' cannot be said to be based on a misconception of fact until and unless there is a clear evidence that a false promise with no intention of upholding the same was given by the maker at the time of making the promise."

The woman had filed a rape case against the man, accusing him of engaging in physical relations under the pretext of marriage. However, he later reneged on the promise, citing an arranged marriage planned by his family with another person.

Following this, the court received information that the man and the complainant had resolved their dispute and were legally married. The complainant informed the high court that she was now living happily with the man and no longer wished to pursue the FIR. She explained that the accusation stemmed from a misconception, as the accused had faced familial resistance to their marriage, leading to his initial reluctance.

"Given the nature of relationship between the petitioner (man) and respondent no.2 (woman), it does not appear that any such alleged promise was in bad faith or to deceive respondent no.2 but for the subsequent developments in the family of the petitioner," the court said.

The court further noted that during the investigation, the man voluntarily married the woman, indicating that his initial promise was not made with the intention of deception. The court emphasized that quashing the proceedings would contribute to greater harmony in the matrimonial relationship between the parties compared to continuing with the legal proceedings under Section 376 of the IPC (punishment for rape). Additionally, the court expressed that the likelihood of conviction after trial was minimal due to the settlement between the couple.

"Continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of court and cause prejudice and disruption in harmony between the parties," the court said.