Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court

"A criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic." Supreme Court, in a judgment, held that criminal proceedings for sexual assault under the pretext of marriage cannot be sustained where a relationship was clearly consensual and continued over a significant period.

 A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that when a well-educated individual enters into a consensual relationship for years, the subsequent failure of the marriage proposal does not automatically imply that the initial consent was obtained through misrepresentation or misconception of fact.

The appellant, Martanda Singh, faced a criminal case registered at the Sirgitti Police Station, Bilaspur, based on a complaint by the second respondent. The complainant alleged that the appellant had engaged in sexual relations with her for three years on the pretext of marriage and subsequently refused to solemnize the union. After a charge sheet was filed and the matter matured into a Sessions Case for the framing of charges, the appellant moved the Supreme Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

The primary legal issue was whether the mere failure to fulfill a promise of marriage after a long-standing, consensual relationship satisfies the threshold of 'misconception of fact' under Section 90 of the IPC to constitute an offense of rape. Furthermore, the court had to determine if criminal law could be utilized as a tool to enforce a civil understanding or marriage proposal.

Distinguishing Genuine Consent from Misconception

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, reiterating that criminal liability for rape on the pretext of marriage requires evidence that the accused never intended to marry the victim from the very inception of the relationship. The bench emphasized that the failure to keep a promise due to circumstances that emerge later does not constitute a "misconception of fact."

Court Clarifies Evidentiary Requirement

The Court observed that the complainant was a well-educated engineering graduate who entered into the relationship willingly. The bench noted that the physical relationship continued unabated for three years, and the complainant frequently facilitated the appellant’s visits to her home. These facts, the court held, indicated a mature, consensual choice rather than a relationship vitiated by coercion or fraud.

"The consent obviously was not on coercion or misrepresentation."

Criminal Law Not A Tool For Coercion

The bench sharply criticized the use of the criminal justice system as a mechanism to force a marriage. Noting that the complainant had expressed a willingness to drop charges if the appellant agreed to marry her, the Court categorized this as an impermissible use of state machinery. The judges held that such undertakings, often made under the threat of prosecution, are unenforceable and cannot serve as the basis for a criminal case.

Proceedings Quashed

Finding no evidence of criminal culpability, the Court allowed the appeal and exercised its powers to quash the charge sheet filed against the appellant. Consequently, the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 216 of 2025, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, were ordered to be closed, effectively granting the appellant total relief from the prosecution.

Date of Decision: 01 October 2026