The Supreme Court quashed an FIR alleging rape on the false pretext of marriage, holding that the case involved a consensual relationship that later turned bitter. The Court cautioned against criminalising failed personal relationships and misuse of serious penal provisions.
New Delhi: In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday quashed a First Information Report (FIR) alleging rape on the false promise of marriage, holding that the facts clearly showed a consensual relationship between two adults that later turned bitter due to personal differences.
A Bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the case reflected a situation where a failed personal relationship was unnecessarily converted into a criminal dispute. The Court remarked that the parties should have shown restraint instead of drawing the State and its criminal machinery into what was essentially a private matter.
ALSO READ: ‘Bundle of Lies’: Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Filed on False Promise of Marriage
While delivering its verdict, the apex court relied on several of its earlier judgments and expressed concern over a growing and “disquieting tendency” where broken or unsuccessful relationships are given a criminal colour.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against a March 2024 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had refused to quash criminal proceedings arising out of an FIR registered in Bilaspur district in February 2025. The FIR had accused the man of repeatedly raping the complainant on the false promise of marriage.
The Bench noted that both the complainant and the accused were practising lawyers. It further took into account that the complainant was a 33-year-old married woman and the mother of a minor child at the relevant time.
Reiterating settled legal principles, the Court said,
“It has been time and again settled by this court that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case.”
After examining the material placed on record, the Bench found no basis to invoke the serious charge of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court categorically held,
“Upon a careful consideration of the record in the present case, we are unable to discern any material that would warrant the invocation of section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate towards a classic case of a consensual relationship turning acrimonious.”
The judgment explained that Section 376(2)(n) IPC deals with enhanced punishment in cases where rape is committed repeatedly on the same woman. Given the seriousness of such allegations, the Bench stressed that courts must act with great caution.
The Court observed that,
“Such genuine cases that deserve prosecution of the accused must be clearly demarcated from litigation that arises from cases of consensual relationships between consenting adults going acrimonious on account of dispute and disagreement or a future change of mind.”
A crucial factor weighed by the Court was the complainant’s existing marriage. Although divorce proceedings between the complainant and her husband were pending, the Bench noted that she was legally not free to marry the accused at the time when the alleged promise of marriage was made.
Clarifying the legal position, the Court stated,
“In other words, the law prohibits bigamous unions and therefore, disallows parties from entering into a second marriage during the subsistence of their first marriage.”
The Bench also rejected the argument that the complainant was misled or induced into the relationship. Highlighting her professional background, the Court said it was difficult to believe that a practising lawyer was unaware of basic matrimonial law. The judges noted that both parties were fully aware of the complainant’s marital status.
The Court further observed that the complainant was not someone lacking the capacity to make informed decisions. It remarked that she was not a naive or gullible woman incapable of understanding the consequences of her actions.
Criticising the misuse of criminal law, the Bench said the complainant ought to have exercised greater prudence before setting the criminal justice system in motion. The Court noted that the State machinery is already overburdened and should not be drawn into personal disputes that do not disclose any criminal offence.
Concluding that no offence was made out against the accused, the Supreme Court set aside the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order. It quashed the FIR as well as all consequential criminal proceedings arising from it, bringing the case to a close.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on False Promise of Marriage
