False Promise to Marry Alone Doesn’t Constitute Rape

Source: High Court at Calcutta

Why in News? 

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das of the High Court at Calcutta, in the case of Anirban Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2026), allowed a criminal revision petition and quashed the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur.  

• The Court held that a mere breach of a promise to marry, following a nearly five-year consensual relationship, does not amount to rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 64 of BNS). 

What was the Background of Anirban Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The complainant alleged that she developed a romantic relationship with the petitioner, Anirban Mukherjee, in 2017. 
• In 2018, she alleged that the petitioner forced her to consume liquor and sexually assaulted her. 
• Thereafter, on the assurance of marriage, she continued the relationship and accompanied him to several places, including Digha and Goa. 
• The complainant subsequently became pregnant and alleged that the petitioner compelled her to terminate the pregnancy. 
• Following the termination, the petitioner refused to marry her and threatened to circulate private photographs. 
• A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 417 (cheating), 376 (rape), 313 (causing miscarriage without consent), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the said proceedings.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court examined the case diary, statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, medical records, and travel details, and found that the parties maintained a consensual, intimate relationship from 2017 to 2022 without any contemporaneous complaint. 
• Despite alleging sexual assault in 2018, the complainant continued to travel and stay with the petitioner across multiple locations over several years, significantly weakening the prosecution's case of coercion or misconception. 
• The pregnancy termination was conducted with the complainant's consent, with the petitioner signing as guardian, thereby negating the allegation under Section 313 IPC. 
• Referring to Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that consent is vitiated only where a false promise to marry was made from the very beginning with no intention to fulfil it — a subsequent refusal to marry cannot retrospectively criminalise consensual intimacy. 
• The Court noted that "misconception of fact" as required under Section 90 IPC was clearly absent in the present case. 
• The allegations under Sections 417 and 506 IPC were also found unsustainable for want of foundational ingredients. 
• The Court termed the continuation of the prosecution a "sheer abuse of the process of court" and quashed the entire proceedings.

What is the Offence of False Promise to Marry? 

About:  

• In IPC, there is no such explicit offence. However, such an offence can be found in Section 69 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 
  • Section 69 of BNS provides punishment for Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc.  
  • It states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.  
  • Explanation— “deceitful means” shall include inducement for, or false promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by suppressing identity.

Essential Elements: 

• The first essential element requires proof of sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.  
• The second element mandates that such sexual intercourse was obtained through deceitful means or false promise of marriage.  
• The third element requires establishing that the accused had no genuine intention of fulfilling the marriage promise from the beginning.  
• The fourth element specifies that the sexual intercourse must not constitute the offence of rape under existing statutory provisions. 
• The fifth element demands demonstrating that the complainant's consent was obtained specifically due to deceitful means or false marriage promises.  
• The statutory explanation clarifies that deceitful means includes inducement through false promises of employment, promotion, or marriage by concealing true identity.  
• The prosecution must establish that the accused harboured mala fide intentions and clandestine motives from the inception of the relationship. 
• The essential element of fraudulent intent distinguishes this offence from mere breach of promise or inability to marry due to unforeseen circumstances. The temporal aspect requires proving that deception existed at the time of sexual intercourse rather than merely subsequent change of mind.  
• The causation element establishes that the complainant would not have consented to sexual intercourse without the false promise or deceptive representation. The section requires demonstrating that the accused deliberately employed deceptive tactics to obtain sexual favours under the guise of future marriage.

What is Section 64 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 64 in the BNS provides punishment for rape  
• Earlier it was dealt with under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code,1860 
• Section 64(1) establishes the general punishment for rape as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, along with a fine. 
• Section 64(2) provides enhanced or aggravated forms of rape with more severe punishments. 
• Section 64(2)(h) specifically deals with a situation where a person "commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant." 
• The punishment prescribed for offences under Section 64(2)(h) is rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, which may extend to imprisonment for life (meaning the remainder of the person's natural life), along with a fine. 
• This provision considers rape of a pregnant woman as an aggravated form of sexual assault, recognizing the additional vulnerability of pregnant victims and potential harm to both the woman and her unborn child. 
• Section 64(2)(h) is one of several circumstances listed in Section 64(2) where the law imposes more severe punishments due to the particularly egregious nature of the offence. 
• This section recognizes that committing rape with the knowledge that the victim is pregnant demonstrates heightened culpability warranting enhanced punishment. 
• The classification of this offence under Section 64(2) rather than 64(1) reflects the legislature's intent to treat such cases with greater severity.