Physical Relationship For Years With Prior Knowledge Of Each Other's Marital Status Not Rape Under 'False Promise Of Marriage': Supreme Court

"Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured... this was not a case where a promise of marriage resulted in appellant deceiving the complainant," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a long-term consensual physical relationship maintained with full knowledge of each other's marital status does not constitute rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage.

A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan observed that when a relationship is maintained for a prolonged period, consent cannot be said to have been obtained under a misconception of fact.

The case arose from an FIR lodged in 2021 alleging offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, and 506 of the IPC. The complainant, who was living separately from her first husband since 2012, met the appellant through a matrimonial site in 2017 before her divorce was finalized. The parties maintained a physical relationship and traveled together across various states for over four years before the relationship soured and the appellant allegedly refused to marry her.

The primary question before the court was whether the consent for physical intimacy was vitiated by a "false promise of marriage" under Section 375 of the IPC given the parties' prior marital statuses and long-term cohabitation. The court was also called upon to determine whether a second quash petition under Section 482 of the CrPC is maintainable if the first was withdrawn without a discussion on merits.

No Deception Where Relationship Continued With Knowledge Of Circumstances

The Court noted that both parties were aware they were married to other spouses when they began their relationship. It observed that the complainant had posted a matrimonial advertisement even before her divorce was finalized in 2018. The bench emphasized that the parties had traveled together and established a physical relationship for over four years between 2017 and 2020 without any complaint of force.

Court Highlights Lack of Immediate Complaint Following Alleged Forcible Act

While the complainant alleged that the first instance of sexual intercourse in October 2017 was against her will, the Court found it significant that no complaint was lodged until February 2021. The bench noted that even after the alleged forceful incident, the parties continued to travel and stay in hotels together in Bhuj and Surat. The relationship only faced legal challenge once the appellant eventually refused to marry the respondent.

"Parties have happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured."

Distinction Between False Promise and Breach of Promise to Marry

Relying on the precedent in Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated the fundamental distinction between a "false promise" and a "breach of promise." A false promise involves a deceptive intent from the very beginning to satisfy lust, whereas a breach of promise may occur due to unforeseen circumstances despite an initial serious intention to marry.

Court Explains When Consent Is Vitiated Under Misconception Of Fact

The bench observed that for a man to be held criminally liable, the physical relationship must be traceable directly to the false promise and not qualified by other considerations. It noted that a woman may choose to have a physical relationship for reasons such as personal liking, without strictly insisting on formal marital ties.

"It would be a folly to treat each breach of promise to marry as a false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 376."

Prolonged Relationship Negates Claim Of Misconception

Quoting Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that where a physical relationship is maintained for a prolonged period knowingly, it cannot be said with certainty that the intimacy was purely because of the alleged promise. The bench found that the direct nexus required to prove a misconception of fact was absent in this case.

Maintainability of Second Quash Petition Under Section 482 CrPC

Addressing the procedural hurdle, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view that a second quash petition was not maintainable. It clarified that there is no inviolable rule against a second petition, especially when the earlier one was withdrawn without any discussion on the merits of the case.

Technical Grounds Should Not Prevent Justice When No Offence Is Made Out

The Court emphasized that when an examination of the facts reveals that the alleged offence is not made out, it would be unjust to dismiss a petition on technical maintainability grounds. Relying on M.C. Ravi Kumar v. D.S. Velmurugan, the bench held that the High Court erred in throwing out the application without considering the underlying facts.

"When we have examined the facts and found that the offence alleged is not made out, we feel it will not be just to throw out the petition on maintainability."

Conclusion and Final Order

The Supreme Court concluded that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law as the elements of rape were not established. The Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order and quashed the pending criminal case (RCC No. 328/2021) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's bail bonds were ordered to be discharged.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026