No Rape Where Consent Is Conscious and Marriage Impossible: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Man Accused of False Promise

“A married woman cannot be induced by a promise that is inherently incapable of fulfilment”, In a significant ruling on the contours of consent and “false promise of marriage,” the Supreme Court has quashed a rape case against a man, holding that a consensual relationship with a married woman cannot be criminalised in the absence of deception, coercion, or inducement.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR, bringing all criminal proceedings to an end.

“Even if the allegations are taken at face value, they do not disclose an offence of rape,” the Court held, invoking its powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

A Relationship That Turned Litigious

The case arose from an FIR alleging that the appellant had engaged in a physical relationship with the complainant on the promise of marriage, which resulted in pregnancy. The relationship reportedly lasted from August 2023 to March 2024.

The complainant, who was working at and managing a massage parlour, alleged that she consented to the relationship only because of the appellant’s promise to marry her. The FIR was lodged after the appellant married another woman on March 12, 2024, followed by a dispute on March 15 when the complainant disclosed her pregnancy.

“The sequence of events suggests a breakdown of a consensual relationship rather than commission of a criminal offence,” the Bench observed.

“Consent Was Evident and Continuous”

A central factor in the Court’s reasoning was the complainant’s own admission of a sustained relationship involving frequent interaction and voluntary intimacy.

“Consent, as emerging from the facts, cannot be said to be vitiated by inducement, misrepresentation, or coercion,” the Court noted.

The Bench emphasised that the relationship unfolded in circumstances indicating conscious participation, not deception.

“Promise of Marriage Was Implausible”

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the complainant was already married and had two children, with no allegation of divorce or separation at the relevant time.

“In such circumstances, there was no real possibility of marriage. A promise incapable of fulfilment cannot be treated as inducement,” the Court held.

This finding struck at the root of the prosecution’s case, as it negated the very premise of consent being obtained under a “misconception of fact.”

Precedent Applied: Amol Bhagwan Nehul

The Bench relied heavily on its recent decision in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that consensual relationships between adults do not amount to rape unless vitiated by clear deception or coercion.

“We find no distinction — the present case is squarely covered,” the Court observed.

DNA Report Irrelevant to Criminality

The State had urged the Court to await the FSL report on the DNA test of the child born from the relationship. The Court declined.

“Even if paternity is established, it does not alter the consensual nature of the relationship,” the Bench clarified, holding that such evidence would not transform the case into one of rape.

Proceedings Quashed in Entirety

Finding that the FIR, even if accepted in full, failed to disclose the ingredients of the offence, the Court held that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

“There is absolutely no reason to sustain the prosecution,” the Bench concluded while quashing FIR No. 127 dated March 28, 2024, registered in Faridabad.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order set aside, and all consequential proceedings terminated, including cancellation of bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 26/02/2026