In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court declared that failure to fulfill a promise of marriage cannot be categorized as rape if two adults have had a consensual relationship over an extended period. The court clarified that under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, a crime is only established if it can be proven that the promise of marriage was false from the outset and was made merely to obtain consent. This ruling highlights the legal nuances of consent in relationships involving promises of marriage.

The case involved a woman from Mussoorie who accused Suraj Bora of making physical contact under the pretense of a marriage promise, only to later deny the marriage. The woman alleged that the accused assured her of marriage within 45 days but later retracted. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge sheet, which was challenged by the accused in the High Court. The court proceedings revealed the complexities that arise when promises of marriage are intricated with consent and relationships.

Defending himself, the accused argued that both parties were adults who had previously engaged in consensual relations for an extended period. The defense contended that no substantial evidence was presented in the FIR to demonstrate that the accused had fraudulent intentions from the beginning. This case raises important questions regarding the nature of consent, the definition of rape in the context of marital commitments, and the legal interpretations that will influence similar cases in the future.