In a significant judgment dated February 17, 2026, the Delhi High Court upheld the discharge of a Delhi Police constable accused in a rape case, reiterating that a long-term consensual relationship between adults cannot be criminalised merely because a promise of marriage was later broken.
The Court made it clear that consent in a sustained romantic relationship does not automatically become invalid due to a subsequent fallout or unmet expectations.
Key Observations of the Delhi High Court
Consent Was Voluntary and Conscious
Justice Saurabh Banerjee noted that the complainant was a mature and educated woman who had been in a relationship with the accused for nearly two years.
The Court highlighted that she voluntarily travelled from Ghaziabad to Delhi to meet the accused at his accommodation, which reflected an exercise of free will and informed choice.
This, according to the Court, indicated that the relationship was consensual in nature.
Section 90 IPC: Consent Must Be Proven as Obtained by Deceit
The Court examined the applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with consent obtained under a “misconception of fact.”
It held that for consent to be vitiated on the ground of a false promise of marriage, the prosecution must establish that:
- The promise was dishonest from the beginning, and
- The accused never intended to marry, but only sought sexual gratification through deception.
In the present case, the Court found no material evidence suggesting that the constable had any fraudulent intention at the inception of the relationship.
Broken Promise Is Not the Same as False Promise
The judgment reinforced an important legal distinction:
- A breach of promise due to later circumstances is different from
- A false promise made solely to mislead the complainant.
The Court observed that criminal law cannot be invoked to punish disappointment arising out of failed romantic relationships.
A consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively converted into a criminal offence simply because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.
Trial Requires Grave Suspicion, Not Mere Doubt
The Delhi High Court further stressed that criminal trials should proceed only when there is grave suspicion of an offence, supported by substantial material on record.
Since the facts revealed only a broken relationship and not criminal intent, the Court held that the discharge of the accused was legally justified.
Broader Judicial Trend on Failed Relationships and Criminal Law
This ruling aligns with a growing body of recent decisions from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, cautioning against the misuse of rape provisions in cases involving failed romantic commitments.
Courts have repeatedly held that:
- Consent freely given over a long period cannot be withdrawn solely because the relationship ended.
- Criminal law should not be used as a tool to address emotional fallout or heartbreak.
Impact of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
The Court also noted the evolving legal position under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which has replaced the IPC.
The new law clarifies that provisions such as Section 69 BNS apply only in cases involving deceitful means, not in situations of mere breach of promise arising from later developments.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s February 17, 2026 ruling serves as an important reminder that criminal liability for rape cannot be imposed in cases of consensual adult relationships simply due to a later broken promise of marriage, unless deception is proven from the very beginning.
The judgment strengthens the principle that failed expectations in relationships cannot be retrospectively criminalised.