Long Live-in Relationship Gives Rise to Presumption of Consent; FIR and Proceedings Quashed

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra heard an appeal against the Uttarakhand High Court's order dated 11.12.2024 which had dismissed a petition to quash FIR No. 482 of 2023 and the proceedings arising therefrom. The appeal concerned allegations of rape, assault and criminal intimidation lodged by a woman who had lived with the appellant as a live‑in partner.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings. It held that the long‑drawn live‑in relationship, including cohabitation in a separate rented accommodation for over two years, gave rise to a presumption of valid consent and that the prosecution did not place material particulars to displace that presumption. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In that view of the matter, in our considered view, the long‑drawn relationship of the appellant and the second respondent including the circumstance of their living together and cohabiting with each other, that too, in a separate rented accommodation, would give rise to a presumption that their relationship was based on a valid consent.” The Court further characterised the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings as "nothing but abuse of the process of the court" and relied on precedents including Pramod Suryabhan Pawar and Deepak Gulati to distinguish false promise cases from mere breach of promise.

Background The dispute arose from an FIR registered at Khatima Police Station on 23.11.2023 in which the informant alleged that she was introduced to the appellant via Facebook in February 2021, entered into a live‑in relationship, and during the relationship the appellant repeatedly promised to marry her, abused and beat her at times and "forcibly established physical relationship" on 18.11.2023. The FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 CrPC) before the High Court seeking quashment of the FIR; the High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence.

Before the Supreme Court the appellant relied on a settlement deed dated 19.11.2023 executed between the parties which, inter alia, recited: "We both the parties know each other since February, 2021. We love each other," and recorded an intention to formalise marriage, contending that the allegation of forcible intercourse was palpably false. The State argued that the settlement itself contemplated legal action if the marriage did not take place and that a promise to marry, if shown to be false at inception, vitiated consent as explained in Pramod Pawar.

The Supreme Court examined the record and precedents. It noted that the FIR did not allege that sexual relations were founded solely on a promise of marriage, that physical relations continued for over two years without complaint and that in such circumstances a presumption of valid consent arose. The Court reiterated the distinction drawn in Pramod Pawar and Deepak Gulati between a false promise made with mala fide intent to deceive and a mere breach of promise; it held that the materials did not establish that the promise was dishonest at the time it was made. Observing that long‑term cohabitation and conduct of the parties merited a non‑pedantic approach, the Court concluded that prosecution for rape on the ground of refusal to marry could not be sustained and that other allegations of assault lacked supporting particulars. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, quashed the FIR and the consequential proceedings, and disposed of pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2438 OF 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 2776 OF 2025) Case Title: RAVISH SINGH RANA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv.; Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Nishant Gill, Adv.; Mr. Saksham Kumar, Adv.; Mr. Aakash, Adv.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar, AOR For the Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR; Mr. Ajay Bahuguna, Adv.; Mr. Siddhant Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR; Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv.