Supreme Court Quashes Summoning Order Where Consensual Adult Relationship Is Found

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by special leave challenging the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’s order which had partly allowed a criminal appeal and sustained the trial court’s summoning of the appellant to face multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appeal arose from a summoning order dated 24 August 2023 in a Special Sessions Trial at Gazipur, which had been partly set aside by the High Court on 30 August 2024 by quashing the summons against the appellant’s father but upholding the summons against the appellant.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the summoning order issued against the appellant for offences under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Bench held that the prosecution failed to establish that the complainant’s consent was vitiated by a false promise of marriage or that caste-based offences were made out on the material on record. The Court emphasised established principles on consent in promise-of-marriage cases and relied on precedents distinguishing mere breach of promise from a consciously false promise intended to satisfy lust. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present case appears to be one where a consensual physical relationship between two adults has turned sour due to certain intervening events. Hence, allowing the prosecution of the appellant for the offences mentioned above would tantamount to sheer abuse of the process of law and nothing else.” The Court further noted that “the theory put forth by the prosecution in the chargesheet that the appellant induced the complainant to indulge in physical relations under a false promise of marriage is neither corroborated nor established by the best evidence available on record, which is in the form of the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 CrPC.”

Background The prosecution alleged that the appellant befriended the complainant on Instagram in January 2022, developed a romantic relationship, promised marriage, and thereafter repeatedly had physical relations with her at different places. The FIR dated 5 August 2023 at Kotwali Police Station, Gazipur recorded allegations including rape, causing miscarriage (later dropped from the charge-sheet), assault and caste-based abuse. The trial court summoned the appellant and his father for trial; the High Court quashed the summons only against the father but sustained summons against the appellant. The complainant’s Section 164 statement, relied upon by the prosecution, recorded that the friendship “eventually led to mutual liking and in-person meetings” and that despite initial reservations “she trusted him and had feelings for him.” The complainant also alleged pregnancy in December 2022 and that the appellant made her take medication to terminate it; after investigation the offence under Section 313 IPC was omitted from the chargesheet.

Relying on established Supreme Court jurisprudence, including Uday v. State of Karnataka and Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, the Bench applied the principle that not every breach of a marriage promise vitiates consent for the purposes of rape, and that conviction required proof that the accused had mala fide intention from the outset. The Court found no credible evidence that the appellant made a false promise of marriage with the intent to deceive or that caste-based slurs, as alleged, were spoken in the complainant’s statement. On that basis the Court concluded the ingredients of the offences were not prima facie made out and that continued prosecution would be an abuse of process. The appeal was allowed and the summoning order of 24 August 2023, insofar as it related to the appellant, was quashed. No interim directions were recorded.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 151 Case Title: Manish Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]