In a significant development that may shape the legal discourse around consensual sexual relationships arising from a false promise to marry, the Supreme Court of India has held that such cases can, in appropriate circumstances, be settled amicably between the parties.
The ruling came in the case titled X v. State of Kerala & Anr., where a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan allowed a compromise-based closure of a rape case after both the accused and the complainant expressed their willingness to end the dispute peacefully and move on with their lives.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an FIR registered at Balussery Police Station, Kerala, on May 24, 2022. The complainant, a married woman living separately from her husband, alleged that the accused, who had assisted her in divorce litigation, later sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage.
According to the complaint:
- In December 2017, the accused invited the complainant to his house and allegedly forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse.
- He allegedly photographed her without consent and threatened to reveal the images to her husband if she spoke about the incident.
- Between 2018 and 2022, he allegedly maintained physical relations with her under repeated assurances of marriage.
- The accused also allegedly took ₹3.54 lakh in cash and gold ornaments worth 2.5 sovereigns from her, which he refused to return — amounting to cheating and criminal intimidation.
Proceedings Before the Kerala High Court
Following the FIR, the accused initially moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail, but the plea was dismissed. The High Court observed that the seriousness of the rape allegations warranted custodial interrogation and declined to grant relief.
Thereafter, the accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR on grounds of false implication. However, the High Court once again refused to interfere, holding that the allegations required a thorough investigation and could not be quashed at the pre-trial stage.
Aggrieved, the accused filed special leave petitions before the Supreme Court of India challenging both High Court orders.
Supreme Court’s Intervention
On December 19, 2024, the Supreme Court issued notice and directed that no coercive action be taken against the accused pending further hearing.
During subsequent hearings, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan encouraged both parties to explore the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement, given the long passage of time and the changing nature of their personal circumstances.
By March 2025, both sides informed the Court that they were willing to amicably resolve the dispute. The accused offered to return the gold ornaments and refund the amount of ₹3.54 lakh to the complainant.
Taking note of these developments, the Supreme Court facilitated the compromise process and directed that:
“The amount deposited by the accused before the trial court shall be released to the complainant or her nominee after due verification.”
With this, the case was formally closed, marking the end of the legal proceedings.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Kerala & Anr. reopens an important debate — can a rape case based on a false promise to marry be quashed upon settlement?
While the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not explicitly prohibit settlements in such cases, courts have historically approached them with caution. However, the top court’s decision acknowledges that not all “rape on promise to marry” cases are identical, and the factual context matters greatly.
1. Differentiating Between Rape and Relationship Disputes
The judgment reiterates that cases involving consensual sexual relationships between adults that later turn sour due to failure to marry should not automatically attract the rigors of Section 376 IPC (rape), especially when there is no element of coercion or deceit from inception.
⚖️ 2. Scope Under Section 482 CrPC
The decision aligns with previous rulings (like Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014) which held that courts can quash criminal proceedings in non-heinous, personal disputes if the settlement serves the interests of justice.
3. Reinforcing Judicial Discretion
By allowing compromise in this case, the Court has reinforced the idea that justice must be restorative and pragmatic, not merely punitive. When both parties choose to move forward peacefully, continuing criminal prosecution serves little purpose.
Bench’s Broader Outlook
Justice BV Nagarathna — known for her progressive and empathetic judgments — has consistently advocated for a sensitive approach to gender-related cases. In several earlier rulings, she has highlighted the need to distinguish between exploitative sexual conduct and failed relationships rooted in mutual consent.
In the present case, the Court’s balanced stance sought to ensure that:
- The dignity and autonomy of the woman were respected by facilitating restitution.
- The accused’s liberty was not unnecessarily curtailed after a genuine resolution.
- The judicial process did not become a means to perpetuate emotional distress for either party.
Related Legal Context
Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, sexual intercourse under a false promise to marry can amount to rape if the promise was false from the inception, i.e., made without intention to marry.
However, courts have repeatedly clarified that:
- If the relationship was consensual and prolonged,
- And the promise was broken due to later differences or family pressure,
Then the case may not constitute rape but a breach of trust or emotional dispute.
This principle was upheld in:
- Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019)
- Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013)
- Maheshwar Tigga v. State of Jharkhand (2020)
The present Supreme Court decision aligns with these precedents, marking a continuation of nuanced judicial understanding in such cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in X v. State of Kerala & Anr. underscores the evolving legal approach to “rape on false promise to marry” cases — emphasizing context, consent, and reconciliation over rigid legal formalism.
While the offense of rape remains a grave and non-compoundable crime, the Court’s willingness to accept compromise in specific, consensual relationship-based disputes signals a more restorative approach to justice.
By closing the case on mutual terms, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan reaffirmed that the law must balance women’s protection from sexual exploitation with the preservation of personal agency, consent, and rehabilitation.
Ultimately, the judgment reflects a humane principle — that justice is not vengeance, but balance.
Also Read
