Section 375 IPC: A promise to marry must be fraudulent at inception to vitiate consent. Breach alone is insufficient (Para 14). Section 227 CrPC: Discharge is warranted if material lacks ingredients of the offence; no mini-trial permissible (Para 16). Judicial Restraint: Revisional courts must not interfere unless the order is perverse or ignores material evidence (Para 17).

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the Sessions Court’s discharge order and terminating criminal proceedings (Para 18).

Held:
a. Distinction between false promise and breach of promise: A broken promise does not equate to rape unless proven dishonest from inception (Para 13, 14).
b. Prolonged consensual relationship: Complainant’s awareness of consequences negated vitiation of consent (Para 15(iii)).
c. Limited revisional jurisdiction: High Court erred in overturning the discharge order without jurisdictional flaws (Para 17).

Major Acts and Provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)- Section 375: Definition of rape, including consent obtained under misconception of fact (Clause Secondly). Section 376: Punishment for rape. Section 506: Criminal intimidation.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)- Section 227: Power of Sessions Court to discharge the accused if no sufficient ground exists for proceeding.

Key Phrases and Latin Terms:

• Prima facie: At first sight (Para 8).

• Misconception of fact: Consent given under a false belief (Para 13).

Question of Law:

Whether a consensual physical relationship based on a promise to marry, which is later breached, constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC if there is no evidence of dishonest inducement from the inception?

Facts:

1. Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order setting aside the Sessions Court’s discharge of the appellant in an FIR alleging rape (Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC).

2. Remedy Sought: Appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings, arguing the relationship was consensual and no false promise was proven.

3. Reason for Filing: Complainant alleged the appellant established physical relations on the false pretext of marriage, leading her to divorce her husband.

4. Prior Decisions: Sessions Court discharged the appellant, holding the complainant’s consent was reasoned and not vitiated by misconception (Para 7).
   High Court reversed, finding prima facie material to frame charges (Para 8).

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s promise to marry amounted to a "false promise" under Section 375 IPC or a mere breach of promise?

2. Whether the complainant’s consent was vitiated by misconception of fact?

3. Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the Sessions Court’s discharge order under Section 227 CrPC?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant:
  a. Relationship was consensual; complainant, a married woman with children, understood the consequences (Para 10).
  b. No evidence of dishonest inducement; mangalsutra with appellant’s initials indicated intent to marry (Para 15(ii)).

• Respondent:
  a. Consent was based solely on the promise of marriage, which was later dishonestly breached (Para 11).

Subjects:

Consensual relationship, false promise, breach of promise, misconception of fact, discharge, revisional jurisdiction.