In a key observation the Supreme Court has held that a break-up of consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as a criminal offence to invoke rape charges against the man. The Court while marking this, quashed a rape case filed against a lawyer from Aurangabad.
During hearing of the case , a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stressed that a relationship cannot be retrospectively converted into rape merely because it ended in disagreement or disappointment, and that allegations of rape on false promise to marry must be supported by clear evidence.
“A mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings… What was a consensual relationship at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship,” the Bench said.
It added that for a case of rape on the basis of false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was deceitful from the very beginning and that the woman’s consent stemmed solely from that misrepresentation.“There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had made a false promise only to satisfy his lust,” the Bench said.
It set aside a Bombay High Court order refusing to quash an FIR that accused the lawyer of repeatedly raping a woman under the false promise of marriage. The Court found that the relationship between the two was voluntary and sustained over three years and that the woman had never alleged coercion or lack of consent during that period.
The case stemmed from a 2024 FIR lodged in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The complainant, a married woman living separately from her husband, had met the lawyer in 2022 when he was assisting her in maintenance proceedings. Over time, the two became close and entered into a physical relationship.
According to the complaint, the lawyer had assured her that he would marry her but later backed out. The woman alleged that she conceived multiple times and terminated the pregnancies with his consent. When he ultimately refused to marry her and threatened her, she filed the FIR for rape under the false promise of marriage.
The lawyer obtained anticipatory bail from the trial court and later sought to have the case quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court rejected his plea after noting that the allegations required trial and that his role as her legal advisor created a fiduciary relationship. He then move the top court.Before the Supreme Court, he argued that the complaint was vindictive and lodged the case only after he declined to pay ₹1.5 lakh allegedly demanded by the woman. He pointed out that she had never lodged any complaint of sexual assault during their three-year relationship.
The Court noted that the allegations revealed an ongoing relationship marked by frequent meetings and consensual intimacy, not acts of coercion or deceit. It found no evidence that the promise of marriage had been false from the outset or that the woman’s consent had been vitiated.The Bench explained that sexual relations traceable to mutual affection could not be criminalised simply because a promise of marriage did not materialise.
Follow us
