Delhi High Court Explains Difference Between “False Promise to Marry” and “Breach of Promise” While Granting Bail in Rape Case
The Delhi High Court, while granting bail to a 20-year-old accused in a rape case, clarified an important legal principle: not every breach of a promise to marry amounts to a false promise attracting Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that the key factor is the intention of the accused at the time of making the promise whether it was made with a dishonest intention to deceive or whether the relationship simply did not culminate in marriage for other reasons.
03-11-2025
Background
The complainant alleged that the accused established a physical relationship with her under the promise of marriage, which he later failed to fulfil. Consequently, a case under Section 376 IPC (rape) was registered.
The accused sought regular bail, contending that the relationship was consensual and that the promise to marry was genuine but could not be fulfilled due to unforeseen circumstances.
Court’s Observations
1. Distinction Between “False Promise” and “Breach of Promise”
Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphasised that courts must carefully assess the intention behind the promise.
“It is not appropriate to treat every breach of promise as a false promise. The distinction lies in the intention of the accused at the time when the promise was made.”
The Court clarified that a false promise to marry amounts to cheating and can vitiate consent only when it is established that the accused never intended to marry from the very beginning and used the promise as a tool to obtain consent for sexual intercourse. However, if the promise was made in good faith but later could not be fulfilled due to differences, family pressure, or other factors, it would amount only to a breach of promise, not a criminal act of rape.
2. Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The Court relied on landmark judgments including:
Uday v. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 46
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 9 SCC 608
Both judgments underline that the element of deception at the inception of the relationship is crucial. If there was no such deceitful intent, the offence of rape under Section 376 cannot be sustained.
3. Court’s Conclusion
The High Court noted that the FIR and the material on record did not indicate any deliberate or mala fide intention of the accused at the inception. Therefore, no prima facie case for rape was made out at this stage. Granting bail, the Court held that the accused deserved the benefit of bail pending trial, reiterating that consensual relationships cannot be criminalised merely because they later fail to lead to marriage.
Legal Significance
This judgment reinforces the need for judicial caution in differentiating between genuine cases of sexual exploitation and consensual relationships that end in disappointment.
By clarifying the boundaries of “consent under misconception,” the Delhi High Court’s order provides a balanced interpretation protecting both the rights of the victim and the accused.
The ruling also serves as guidance for trial courts handling such sensitive matters, ensuring that criminal law is not misused as a tool for revenge or emotional redressal in failed relationships.
Case Details
Case Title: [Name withheld] v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Date of Order: [Insert date from order]
Citation: Bail Application No. [Insert number] of 2025
Provision Involved: Section 376 IPC – Rape on false promise to marry
This article cover the legal point on Difference between Breach of aggreement of marriage and intention not to marry with female in order to save the Men from false cases of Rape this judgement will play important role.Further you can read here important judgements and legal principles laid down by Hon’ble supreme court of India, this article is posted by Advocate Shivaji Rathore (J&K high court jammu) for more important legal topics stay connected with us, on tacit legal we post on YouTube channel also named as Tacit Legal helpful for Law students newely enrolled Advocate in India and other states, Follow us on Instagram also, Read our articles on important Questions of Law. #tacitlegal visit my website Tacit Legal dot in search on google, this website is made from Hostinger and wordpress follow our latest updates for legal news follow us on YouTube also for young lawyers law students helpful for Advocates, this blog is written by Advocate Shivaji Rathore practicing in Jammu and Kashmir high court and district court at Jammu. The website Tacit Legal is available on Google created with Hostinger and wordpress keep in touch and read our daily articles and reporting for law students and advocates as we provide you important legal information on Tacit Legal.in
Author: Advocate Shivaji Rathore
Founder – Tacit Legal | tacitlegal.in
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme - Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC01-Feb-2026 In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026 In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus - Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 FrameworkShivaji Rathore 29-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public ServantsShivaji Rathore, 28-01-2026 The Supreme Court laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
