The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that unexplained delay in filing an FIR and the existence of a prior consensual relationship between the parties do not, by themselves, warrant quashing of an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The Court emphasized that the threshold for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, remains high and requires clear absence of any prima facie offence or manifest mala fides.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Amlon Tirkey, seeks quashing of an FIR registered under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, alleging rape by false promise of marriage. The complainant, Sukrita Toppo, claims that from 2019 to 2024, the applicant repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her under the pretext of imminent marriage, while consistently evading his commitment. She alleges that he only proposed to marry another woman in November 2024, prompting her to file the complaint after a six-year silence.
Procedural History
- October 2019: Alleged first incident of sexual intercourse at Tulsi Lodge, Ambikapur, following a promise of marriage
- 2019 - 2024: Continued physical relationship with repeated assurances of marriage
- November 2024: Applicant proposed to marry another woman; complainant refused and alleged blackmail
- June 2025: FIR No. 332/2025 registered at PS Gandhi Nagar
- July 2025: Charge-sheet No. 232/2025 filed
- September 2025: Cognizance taken by Sessions Judge, Ambikapur
- March 2026: Petition under Section 528 BNSS filed before Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The applicant seeks quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet, cognizance order, and all consequential proceedings, arguing that the allegations reflect a failed consensual relationship, not criminal conduct.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an unexplained delay of six years in filing an FIR, coupled with evidence of a prior consensual relationship, is sufficient to invoke the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash proceedings under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, even if the FIR prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the offence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the WhatsApp chats and prolonged association between the parties demonstrated mutual affection and voluntary intimacy, negating the element of non-consent. He relied on State of H.P. v. Hari Singh and P. Parameswaran v. State of Kerala to contend that a broken romantic relationship cannot be criminalized. He emphasized the absence of medical evidence of force, the lack of any prior complaint, and the timing of the FIR - immediately after the applicant’s engagement to another woman - as proof of mala fides. He further cited Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to argue that the Court must examine the substance of allegations, not merely their form.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate contended that the FIR, on its face, alleges a classic case of rape by false promise of marriage under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. He submitted that the complainant’s delayed complaint does not invalidate the allegations, as victims in such cases often suffer psychological trauma and fear social stigma. He relied on State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M. Maridoss to assert that the High Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage and must accept the allegations as true unless they are inherently absurd or impossible.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, noting its continuity with Section 482 CrPC. It reiterated that the power to quash is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. The Court held that the mere existence of a consensual relationship does not negate the possibility of deception under Section 376(2)(n), which criminalizes sexual intercourse obtained by a false promise of marriage made with no intention to fulfill it.
"The Court cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness of the allegations at this stage; it must only determine whether the averments, if accepted at face value, disclose a cognizable offence."
The Court found that the FIR explicitly alleges that the applicant induced the victim into sexual relations by promising marriage, while secretly intending to avoid it. The fact that the relationship lasted for years does not automatically imply consent to the act; the critical inquiry is whether consent was obtained through fraud. The Court further noted that delay in reporting, while relevant for credibility, is not a legal bar to prosecution, especially in cases involving emotional manipulation and fear of social ostracization.
The Court distinguished Neharika Infrastructure by clarifying that while the Court must not conduct a mini-trial, it is not required to ignore the factual matrix entirely. However, in this case, the allegations were neither inherently impossible nor legally insufficient. The absence of corroborative medical evidence was deemed insufficient to override the complainant’s testimony at the quashing stage.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, and the existence of a prior consensual relationship and unexplained delay do not, by themselves, justify quashing the proceedings. The matter must proceed to trial for full adjudication of facts.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Alone Cannot Quash a Rape FIR
- Practitioners must not assume that delay in filing an FIR automatically invalidates a sexual assault case under Section 376 IPC
- Courts will consider delay as a factor for credibility, not as a jurisdictional bar to trial
- In cases involving emotional manipulation, delay is often explained by fear, shame, or psychological trauma
Consent Must Be Evaluated in Context of Deception
- A consensual relationship does not preclude a finding of non-consent if consent was obtained through fraudulent promise of marriage
- The intent to deceive at inception is the critical element under Section 376(2)(n)
- WhatsApp chats and prolonged association may be relevant, but cannot substitute for proof of fraudulent intent
Inherent Jurisdiction Requires Clear Abuse
- Courts will not interfere at the FIR stage unless allegations are legally unsustainable or manifestly malicious
- Petitioners must demonstrate that the case is a clear abuse of process, not merely a contested factual dispute
- The burden is on the petitioner to show that no reasonable trier of fact could convict on the allegations
