The Supreme Court dismissed that a promise of marriage followed by a consensual relationship does not amount to rape, as it dismissed a POCSO case filed against a man who later withdrew his marriage proposal.
The Supreme Court highlighted that a promise of marriage and a consensual physical relationship do not constitute rape, as it dismissed a POCSO case against an individual for maintaining relations with a minor girl and subsequently withdrawing his marriage proposal.
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar ruled in favor of Kunal Chatterjee, who appealed against a Calcutta High Court decision that refused to quash the case against him.
Chatterjee faced charges under Sections 417, 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The complainant, when filing the FIR, was an adult but claimed she was a minor at the time of the consensual relationship, which began when she was 15.
Also Read: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
She stated that she entered the relationship based on the appellant’s promise to marry her.
After reaching adulthood, she alleged that Chatterjee backed out of his promise, leading to humiliation from his family, which compelled her to file an FIR against him and his relatives.
The FIR indicated that the relationship occurred while she was a minor and was based on the promise of marriage, suggesting that rape had taken place.
Chatterjee sought to quash the FIR through the inherent jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. While the High Court dismissed the proceedings against his family members, it allowed the case against him to proceed.
The state counsel argued that consent from a minor is not valid, thereby constituting rape.
However, the bench stated,
“In our considered opinion, as regarding the rape being committed by the appellant when the prosecutrix was a minor, there is absolutely no evidence, and definitely no forensic evidence with the prosecution.”
The court noted that the allegations were made more than three years after the events, and there was no substantial evidence to support the claim of rape under the POCSO Act. The complainant had explicitly stated that she consented to the relationship based on the promise of marriage.
The bench emphasized that previous rulings have established that a promise of marriage coupled with a consensual relationship does not amount to rape, referencing cases such as Prithivirajan v. State (2025), Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), and Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020).
The bench concluded that the delay in filing the FIR indicated that the proceedings against Chatterjee were an abuse of legal process, and the High Court should have exercised its inherent jurisdiction to quash the case against him as well.
The bench said,
“Under the present facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence with the prosecution, particularly the long delay in lodging the FIR itself suggest that the present criminal proceedings lodged against the appellant are nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the High Court ought to have invoked its inherent jurisdiction in the case of the appellant as well as it did while quashing the proceedings for the remaining accused,”
Consequently, the court annulled the proceedings against Chatterjee.
Case Title: Kunal Chatterjee Vs The State of West Bengal and Others