According to the accused, he had a consensual relationship with a woman. He claimed they had a love affair and she consented to having physical relations with him.

The woman, however, claimed that her consent was given under a misconception, as the man gave her a false assurance. She claimed that he seduced her on the premise that he "exclusively" loved her and no one else.

After having a brief relationship, the couple broke up.

Having considered the contentions and facts of the case, the bench said, "If the allegations made by the woman against the man are considered at face value, a prima facie impression is created that she agreed to have sexual relations with him only in the belief that the love expressed by him was genuine.

It is true that he did not give any express promise of marriage initially, but it is also true that she had initially resisted his overtures on the ground that before marriage, there could be no physical relationship."

"It was only after such refusal of the woman that the man, to seduce her into agreeing, told her that he loved only her and nobody else. It appears that believing such words she initially surrendered herself," the judges noted.

The bench further noted that the woman did not get involved in the sexual relationship because she had any deep love and passion for the accused. "Rather, this is a case wherein the temptation to enter into such a relationship was given by the man,’’ the bench noted.

"The assurance as was given by the man was sufficient for the woman to misconceive it as genuine. Thus, the petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed," the judges held.