26 May 2025 Rape >> Criminal Law  

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a criminal case alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage, underscoring that a consensual relationship that sours or ends cannot automatically be criminalized under Sections 376 (rape) or 377 (unnatural offenses) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court emphasized that such prosecutions can constitute an abuse of the legal process, especially when allegations appear driven by a personal grudge rather than genuine coercion.

The case involved an appeal against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which had refused to quash an FIR registered at Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara, against a 23-year-old student. The FIR was lodged by a previously married woman, alleging that the appellant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her multiple times between June 2022 and July 2023 on the false assurance of marriage. She also alleged that he committed unnatural sex.

Background of the Allegations:

According to the complainant, she became acquainted with the appellant, her neighbor, in June 2022, and their friendship blossomed into love. She claimed that in July 2022, the appellant entered her house at night, promised marriage once her divorce was finalized, and then had sexual intercourse with her despite her denial. Similar incidents allegedly occurred in September 2022 and January 2023 (where unnatural sex was also alleged), all based on the assurance of marriage. The complainant stated that the appellant gradually reduced interaction and left for his hometown. Her complaint was filed on July 31, 2023, after she visited his native village and his family allegedly refused the marriage due to religious differences and physically assaulted her.

The appellant, however, presented a different narrative, asserting that the complainant actively pursued him, even visiting his college. His father had previously filed a complaint with the police alleging harassment by the complainant and threats to implicate his son in false rape cases if he refused marriage. A Non-Cognizable Offence Report (NCR) was also registered based on a threatening call from the complainant.

Judicial Scrutiny and Supreme Court's Findings:

The Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, while granting anticipatory bail to the appellant, had observed that the complainant, being a mature adult, appeared to be a consenting party given the prolonged nature of the relationship.

The Supreme Court, after carefully reviewing the facts and material on record, made several critical observations:

• Consensual Nature of Relationship: The Court noted that even if the allegations in the FIR were taken at face value, the complainant's conduct — sustaining the physical relationship for over 12 months and visiting the appellant in lodges on multiple occasions — did not corroborate her claim of consent being obtained "against her will" or "merely on an assurance to marry."
• No Misconception of Fact: The Court found no material to suggest "inducement or misrepresentation" on the appellant's part to secure consent without any intention of fulfilling a promise. It highlighted that the complainant obtained her divorce (Khulanama) in December 2022, after the initial alleged incidents, making it "inconceivable" that she engaged in a physical relationship based on a marriage assurance while still married to someone else. Furthermore, such a promise would have been "illegal and unenforceable" at that time.
• Lack of Coercion/Threats: There was no evidence of coercion or threats to substantiate charges under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation). The Court inferred that the relationship was cordial until the appellant graduated and left, and the complainant's agitated visit to his native village without intimation suggested an underlying motive for the criminal prosecution.
• Improbability of Deception: The Court found it improbable that a previously married woman with a four-year-old child would continue to be deceived or maintain a prolonged physical relationship with an individual who had sexually assaulted her.
• Abuse of Process of Law: The Court reiterated its consistent warnings against the misuse of legal provisions, especially converting a consensual relationship that turns sour into a criminal offense. It referenced the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings, concluding that this case fell into categories where allegations are "absurd and inherently improbable" or where proceedings are "manifestly attended with mala fide" and instituted with an "ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance."

Verdict:

Considering the appellant's young age (25 years) and the potential impact of an impending trial on his future, the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court's order and quashed the FIR and all emanating proceedings against the appellant. This decision effectively discharged the appellant, canceling his bail bonds.

Section 376., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 377., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860