Discharging a man in a false promise rape case, the Supreme Court has held that the legislature never intended consensual sexual acts between adults in a mutually affectionate relationship to be retrospectively criminalised merely because the relationship later ended, and has warned that such accusations strip the man of all agency.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has discharged a man accused of rape on the allegation that he had sexual relations with the complainant on a false promise of marriage, holding that physical intimacy during a functioning relationship cannot later be branded as rape only because the relationship soured [Santhosh Kumar N.P v. State-Station House Officer].
A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan flagged what it called a “disturbing trend in recent years” of consensual relationships that have ended being retrospectively examined to identify what can, after the fact, be construed as violence and sexual assault. The order was passed in a special leave petition arising from criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Deceit at the outset versus regret at the end
The Court drew a distinction between two situations. The first is where the absence of consent rests entirely on a “mirage of deceit and falsehood at the outset”, that is, where the promise of marriage was false from the beginning and consent was obtained on that basis. The second is the “experience of regret for having consented to past sexual acts owing to the later demise of the relationship”. The latter, the Court said, while unfortunate, cannot convert a consensual relationship into a crime or set the criminal justice system in motion in a way that deprives the accused of liberty and reputation.
The Bench held that treating a breakup as grounds for a rape accusation leaves the man with no way to end a relationship he once consented to.
“Such an approach denudes the man of any agency entirely as the mere factor of being in a consensual relationship at one point would bind him to it entirely for fear of being accused of rape at a subsequent point of time. In such a scenario can it be said that the man has no right to withdraw from the relationship? Can the decision be termed as deceit or fraud? Clearly not.”
Physical intimacy during the currency of a functioning relationship, the Court said, “cannot be retrospectively branded as act of rape merely because the relationship soured and no longer subsists”.
Rape must be reserved for real sexual violence
The Court noted that it had repeatedly seen failed relationships being converted into criminal cases. It observed that rape, being a heinous offence, “must be reserved for situations where there is real sexual violence, coercion or manipulation of consent”, and that converting every soured consensual relationship into an accusation of rape “dilutes the gravity of the offence alleged or rather negates the very allegation of crime”.
At the same time, the Bench underscored that rape “strikes at the core of a woman’s bodily autonomy and dignity”. It acknowledged that the offence remains heavily under-reported, with victims often choosing silence to protect their own and their families’ honour and reputation. Genuine cases, the Court said, “must be pursued with rigour where facts clearly show sexual assault and violence”, but the justice system must not be abused to harass a person merely for ending a consensual relationship.
Why the order matters
The order consolidates a line of Supreme Court decisions on rape allegations founded on a promise of marriage. The settled test is whether the promise was false when made and whether consent was given only because of it. A promise that was genuine at the time, but could not be kept because the relationship ended, does not satisfy that test. What is new is the Court’s explicit framing of the man’s agency: a person who was once in a consensual relationship retains the right to walk away from it, and exercising that right is neither deceit nor fraud.
The Bench was careful to keep the two sides of the principle together. Real sexual violence, coercion or manipulation of consent must be prosecuted with rigour, and under-reporting of rape remains a serious concern. The warning is aimed at the use of the criminal process to punish the end of a relationship, which the Court said both harms the accused and weakens the seriousness of the offence itself.
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar N.P v. State-Station House Officer [SLP (Crl) No. 10173-10174 of 2025, Diary No. 33755 of 2025]
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, Supreme Court of India