Supreme Court: "No Rape On False Promise To Marry When Adult Parties Had Consensual Relations For Years"

The Supreme Court quashed a rape case, ruling that consensual relationships between adults spanning years cannot be labeled as rape due to an unfulfilled promise to marry. The court emphasized the absence of criminal intent under Section 376 IPC and upheld its consistent stance on such matters while ensuring the confidentiality of the parties involved.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Supreme Court: "No Rape On False Promise To Marry When Adult Parties Had Consensual Relations For Years"

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court quashed a rape case, observing that the relationship between the parties was consensual and had continued for several years before the complaint was filed. The case involved allegations of backing out of a promise to marry. Both parties were adults and had mutually agreed to the relationship.

The court was considering a Transfer Petition related to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 read with Section 142, which was pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Alongside, the matter included an FIR filed under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The Division Bench, comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal, clarified,

“As far as the FIR No. 331 of 2018 is concerned, as the same could not be subject matter of settlement between the parties, on examination of the contents of the FIR, we have already opined that no case for proceeding under Section 376 and 506 IPC is made out.”

Facts of the Case:

The dispute involved financial transactions that were settled after the respondent paid Rs 25 lakh to the petitioner via Demand Drafts as per a Settlement Agreement. However, the FIR by the petitioner alleged rape (under Section 376 IPC) and criminal intimidation (under Section 506 IPC).

The Bench reviewed the FIR and noted that the parties had intimate relations with consent for 4-5 years, which included financial dealings. The complaint was filed after an alleged breach of a promise to marry.

The Bench explicitly stated,

“Contents of the FIR clearly suggest that both the parties being adult had consensual relations for years before the complaint was filed alleging that there was backing out of promise to marry.”

Referring to prior judgments, including XXXX v. State of M.P. (2024) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Bench reiterated that such circumstances do not constitute an offense under Section 376 IPC. The Bench stated,

“This Court has consistently opined that under these admitted facts no case is made out under Section 376 IPC.”

Ruling on the Cheque Bounce Matter:

Regarding the cheque bounce matter under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Bench acknowledged the settlement between the parties and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

However, concerning the FIR under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, the Bench held that no case was made out, leading to the quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings.

Conclusion:

While disposing of the petition, the court emphasized the importance of confidentiality in such cases, stating,

“Though the parties have mentioned their names in the petition, however considering the fact that the issue considered by this Court in the present order is also pertaining to quashing of FIR under Section 376 and 506 IPC, we deem it appropriate to mask the names in our order. Hence, the petitioner/complainant has been named as ‘ABC’, whereas the respondent has been named as ‘XYZ’.”

Advocates Yatendra Sharma, Apoorva Sharma, and Dhawesh Pahuja for the petitioner.