Consent Given by a Mature Woman in a Romantic Relationship Is Not Vitiated by Unfulfilled Promise of Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Youth

"A Consensual Relationship Turning Sour Cannot Justify Criminal Prosecution Under Section 376 IPC": In a significant decision, the Supreme Court of India quashed rape charges against a 25-year-old student arising out of a failed romantic relationship. The Court observed that “when two adults voluntarily enter into a relationship, the criminal law cannot be invoked merely because the relationship did not culminate in marriage.” Reversing the Bombay High Court's refusal to quash the FIR, the Court held that the prosecutrix’s consent could not be said to have been vitiated merely on account of an unfulfilled promise of marriage, especially when the relationship was long-standing and consensual.

The complainant, a woman previously married and residing with her minor son, alleged that between June 2022 and July 2023, the appellant had sexual relations with her multiple times on the false pretext of marrying her. She claimed she resisted initially, but later gave in, trusting his assurances. The accused was her neighbor and a student of agriculture.

The complaint alleged forced sexual acts and even unnatural sex, along with exploitation of her car and financial resources. A chargesheet followed after the FIR dated July 31, 2023. However, the appellant secured anticipatory bail and approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The High Court refused, prompting the present appeal.

At the heart of the case was whether prolonged sexual relations based on a promise of marriage—later unfulfilled—constituted rape under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) IPC. The Supreme Court gave decisive clarity:

“Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken as a true and correct depiction of circumstances, it does not appear from the record that the consent of the Complainant was obtained against her will and merely on an assurance to marry.”

The Court emphasized that the complainant was a mature, adult woman, previously married, who chose to maintain a physical and emotional relationship for over a year. It noted:

“She not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions.”

On the issue of consent, the Court reiterated the definition under Section 90 IPC and firmly held: “The consent... cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact. There is no material to substantiate ‘inducement or misrepresentation’ on the part of the Appellant.”

In a crucial legal finding, the Court pointed out the illegality of the promise itself:

“It is inconceivable that the Complainant had engaged in a physical relationship... while she was already married to someone else. Even otherwise, such promise to begin with was illegal and unenforceable qua the Appellant.”

The Court underlined that while allegations of rape must be treated seriously, it is equally important to prevent the misuse of law. It cautioned against invoking the criminal process as a tool of revenge in emotionally-charged personal disputes:

“A consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal machinery of the State. Such conduct not only burdens the Courts, but blots the identity of an individual accused of such a heinous offence.”

Referring to its earlier ruling in Naim Ahmed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court noted:

“It is a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and prosecute a person for an offence under section 376 IPC.”

The judgment also criticized the complainant’s conduct in visiting the accused’s native village uninvited, concluding that the prosecution appeared to be driven by a “disgruntled state of mind” rather than genuine grievance.

Finding no evidence to support the charges under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), the Court said:

“It is improbable that there was any threat caused to the Complainant when all along the relationship was cordial, and it was only when the Appellant graduated and left… she became agitated.”

The Supreme Court decisively held that the case fell within the exceptions laid out in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly where proceedings appear “manifestly attended with mala fide... with a view to spite [the accused] due to private and personal grudge.” Accordingly, the FIR, chargesheet, and all proceedings were quashed.

“Taking into consideration that the Appellant is just 25 years of age, and has a lifetime ahead of him, it would be in the interest of justice that he does not suffer an impending trial,” the Court concluded.

Date of Decision: May 26, 2025