Supreme Court Quashes Rape FIR Alleging Promise to Marry, Holds Relationship Is Consensual

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad, challenging the refusal to quash an FIR registered under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 IPC arising out of allegations that an advocate repeatedly raped a married woman by falsely promising marriage. The challenge arose from Criminal Application No. 601 of 2025 under Section 528 BNSS after a charge-sheet had been filed.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 06.03.2025 and quashed FIR No. 294 of 2024 and Charge-sheet No. 143 of 2024, holding that the material on record pointed to a long-term consensual relationship rather than offences attracting Section 376(2)(n). The Court emphasised the need to reserve the grave charge of rape for cases of genuine sexual violence, coercion or absence of free consent and warned against converting failed relationships into criminal proceedings. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the foregoing analysis, we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the High Court, inasmuch as the present case pertains to a consensual relationship, and the acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. In our opinion, the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is unsustainable. The acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery." The Court also noted that "a mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings."

Background The prosecution alleged that the respondent-woman, married to another person, was introduced to the appellant advocate during matrimonial proceedings in January 2022, and that the two developed a relationship in which the appellant allegedly promised marriage and repeatedly had sexual relations with her between March 2022 and May 2024. The woman alleged multiple pregnancies and terminations, and that the appellant later refused to marry and threatened her, leading to the FIR on 31.08.2024. The Trial Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the appellant and the police filed a charge-sheet on 25.10.2024. The High Court dismissed the quashing application on the ground that a charge-sheet existed, the matter was ready for trial and the facts required testing at trial.

The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 376(2)(n) IPC, which punishes rape "committed repeatedly on the same woman," and examined when a promise of marriage could vitiate consent under Section 90 IPC. The bench followed precedents including Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra and Prashant v. State of NCT of Delhi, reiterating that to criminalise conduct on the basis of a false promise to marry, there must be cogent material showing that the promise was made from the outset in bad faith and that the sexual relationship was traceable solely to that false promise. Having reviewed the FIR, statements and delays in lodging the complaint, the Court found the relationship to be of prolonged consensual character and held that continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process.

Result: The appeal succeeded; the impugned High Court order was set aside; FIR No. 294 of 2024 and Charge-sheet No. 143 of 2024 stood quashed. The Registry was directed to pay an honorarium to the Amicus Curiae.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 5001 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1351; arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6906 of 2025) Case Title: SAMADHAN S/O SITATRAM MANMOTHE …APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASTHRA & ANOTHER …RESPONDENTS Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Names not specified in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): For the State: [Learned counsel — name not specified]; For Respondent No.2: represented by Amicus Curiae Ms. Radhika Gowtam, Advocate-on-Record (appointed by the Court)