Supreme Court Upholds Sessions Court Discharge, Holds Promise to Marry Does Not Automatically Constitute Rape

A two-judge bench comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal against the Delhi High Court’s order of January 3, 2024, which had set aside an order of discharge passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in relation to FIR No. 281/2021 registered at PS Sagarpur under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The appeal arose from a Special Leave Petition filed by the accused challenging the High Court’s interference with the Sessions Court’s decision to discharge.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and upheld the Sessions Court’s discharge dated June 8, 2023, thereby terminating the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 281/2021. The Bench held that the material on record did not establish the ingredients of offences under Section 375 or Section 506 IPC. The Court relied on precedents including Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi) and reiterated that "the mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The decision in Naim Ahmed (supra) is squarely applicable to the conspectus of present case. It has been time and again settled by this Hon’ble Court, that the mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.” The Court further noted that "the physical relationship between the Appellant and the Respondent no. 2 was consensual from the very beginning" and emphasised that "it is trite law that at the time of framing of charge, a mini trial is not permissible."

Background The complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that the appellant had established a sexual relationship on the promise of marriage and had induced her to obtain a divorce from her then-husband. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused had lived with her and assured her family and ex-husband of his intention to marry and care for her children, but later refused to marry and threatened her. The FIR was registered on June 5, 2021; investigation concluded in a charge-sheet dated May 15, 2022, under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The Sessions Court, on an application under Section 227 CrPC, discharged the accused on June 8, 2023, holding that the prosecutrix’s consent was “very well reasoned” and not based on any misconception of fact.

The complainant challenged the discharge by way of Criminal Revision before the Delhi High Court, which allowed the revision and directed framing of charges. The Supreme Court granted leave, heard the limited question whether there was sufficient material to justify framing of charges, and examined the record on its face value. Applying established principles, including the distinction between a false promise to marry and a bona fide promise later breached, the Court concluded that the material did not demonstrate dishonest inducement or lack of consent as required to attract Section 375 IPC, nor did it disclose criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. Finding that the High Court had undertaken an impermissible re-appraisal of evidence at the charge stage, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order, upheld the Sessions Court discharge and directed termination of the criminal proceedings. Pending applications were disposed of and no order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 457 Case Title: Jaspal Singh Kaural v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]