In this case, the allegations made in the FIR were that the petitioner had established physical relationship with the complainant on the false promise of marriage. A single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the material placed on record revealed that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant was consensual.

The Court held:

“There is a difference between making a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused. In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry the prosecutrix and would have cheated or deceited the prosecutrix by giving a false promise to marry her with a view to satisfy his lust, whereas, in case of breach of promise, the possibility that accused might have given a promise with intent to marry her but subsequently might have encountered certain unforeseen circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him to fulfill his promise, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not appropriate to treat each breach of promise as a false promise of marriage. Each case therefore would depend upon its own case.”.

The Court further held:

“The Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations under Section 376 IPC. However, it is equally well-settled that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of coercion or revenge when a consensual relationship turns sour. The protection of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, must remain paramount, especially when the allegations appear to be exaggerated or motivated.”.

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and it was directed that if the petitioner was arrested, he be released on furnishing a personal bond and subject to the conditions contained in the order.