#Section 90 IPC

The Allahabad High Court has held that a broken promise to marry, without evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the time of consent, cannot retroactively transform consensual sexual relations into rape under Section 376 IPC. This ruling protects individuals from weaponizing criminal law in broken romantic relationships and reinforces that consent must be evaluated at the time of the act, not redefined by later disappointment.

The Patna High Court ruled that a subsequent refusal to marry after a consensual relationship does not constitute rape unless the promise of marriage was made with fraudulent intent from the outset. The judgment underscores that consent under misconception requires proof of deceit at the time of the promise, not merely a breach of promise later.

Calcutta High Court sets aside a rape conviction under Section 376 IPC, ruling that subsequent marriage and cohabitation negate the claim of deceit unless the prosecution proves fraudulent intent existed at the time of the act. The judgment clarifies that consent under misconception (Section 90 IPC) requires evidence of initial deception, not merely a broken promise.

Allahabad High Court rules that sexual intercourse obtained through a false promise of marriage-made with no intention of fulfillment-amounts to rape under Section 376 IPC, irrespective of physical force or medical evidence. The ruling underscores that consent under misconception negates legal validity, mandating trial progression for the accused.