Recently, in the matter of Syed Shahid Hamdani Vs UT of J&K, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashed a rape FIR, by observing that any proposal made for live-in-relationship does not tantamount promise to marry.

The bench headed by Justice Sanjay Dhar observed, "He proposed to have live-in-relationship with her, meaning thereby that at the initial stage, the petitioner had not indicated his intention to marry the prosecutrix but he only wanted to ascertain as to how their relationship will work out, whereafter he was to make up his mind as to whether or not he would enter into wedlock with the prosecutrix. This goes on to show that there was no promise of marriage from the petitioner at the time of initiation of their relationship"

In the said matter, the Petitioner was charged under Sections 376(Rape), 420(Cheating) and 506(Criminal Intimidation) of IPC. The complainant said that the accused had expressed his desire to marry her and in order to understand each other in a much better and more efficient manner he had proposed that they should start living together in a live-in relationship.

However, later, the petitioner expressed his inability to marry her as he was under family pressure.

In his defence, the Petitioner said that the statements of the complainant show that there was a long-standing relationship between the petitioner and the prosecutrix, which has gone wrong but the same cannot amount to an offence under Section 376 IPC.

After observation, the Court said that once the prosecutrix came to know that the family of the petitioner is not in favour of their marriage and live-in-relationship, prudence demanded that she, a mature girl of 38 years, should not have allowed him to stay with her and to have a physical relationship with her.

During the hearing, the Court also discussed Section 375 of IPC and said, -

"Consent as required under Section 375 IPC, means an active understanding of the circumstances, actions and consequences thereof and a person, who makes a choice after evaluating all the facts and circumstances and the possible consequences of such actions, consents to such an action", the bench underscored.

Thus, the Court Quashed the petition