The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently observed that no prudent woman would “go around” with a man for two years just on the basis of a promise of marriage, despite knowing that their chances of marriage are remote..Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy made the observations while quashing proceedings in a rape case filed against a man accused of having sexual relations with the complainant on the basis of a false promise of marriage. The Court opined,“Knowing pretty well that the chance of getting marriage between both of them is remote, no prudent woman would give a consent under the guise of misconception of fact. No one would keep calm but will draw a line as to whether the promise of marriage made by the accused is false from its very inception especially the accused has been dodging the marriage. No prudent woman would go around with the person for a period of two (2) years on the ground of promise of marriage.".The Court noted that the complainant was a highly-qualified woman, who would be aware of misconception and its consequences. It added that in order to attract the offence of rape, it had to be seen whether consent was obtained under misconception of fact. Looking into the record, the Court found that the First Information Report (FIR) itself revealed that the complainant was aware that marriage between them was not possible as they belonged to different castes.Taking note of the fact the complainant had gone with the accused “to lonely places and to hotel rooms,” the Court said such things usually happen when couples “are madly in love without caring that what may come.”“Thereafter when a moment arises all the promises would lose their significance, particularly when they overcome with their emotions and passion and find themselves in a dicey situation,” it added..In this backdrop, the Court said it would be very difficult to come to the conclusion that the complainant had consented due to a misconception of fact arising out of a promise made by the accused.It is impossible to know what was in the mind of the complainant when she gave consent, because there can be any number of reasons for her to give consent, it added.The Court also opined that misconception of fact must be confined only to the circumstances falling under the descriptions of 'fourthly' and 'fifthly' in Section 375 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), or whether consent given was under misconception of fact contemplated by Section 90 (consent known to be given under fear or misconception) of IPC.While quashing the rape charge against the accused, the Court said that the police can proceed with its investigation into other allegations against the accused.