In a crucial judgment reinforcing the distinction between genuine sexual violence and consensual relationships that later turn acrimonious, the Supreme Court of India held that converting every sour relationship into an allegation of rape undermines the gravity of the offence and causes serious injustice to the accused. The Court emphasised that the offence of rape must only be invoked in instances involving genuine coercion, absence of free consent, or sexual exploitation under clearly established false promises.
The apex court quashed a rape case filed against an advocate accused of repeatedly raping a woman on the pretext of a false promise of marriage. The bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice R Mahadevan, observed that the relationship between the parties was consensual, emotionally involved, and long-term, and could not be retrospectively criminalised merely because the relationship later turned bitter.
Supreme Court Observations: Trivialising the Offence of Rape
The Supreme Court noted in unequivocal terms:
“The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.”
The Court termed such misuse of the criminal justice system as a matter of profound concern, highlighting that false or exaggerated allegations damage not only individuals but also dilute the credibility of genuine rape cases, which require the utmost seriousness and sensitivity.
Case Background and Facts
The case involved a relationship that lasted from March 2022 to May 2024. The complainant alleged that the accused advocate committed repeated rape by inducing her into sexual relations on the false assurance of marriage. Subsequently, she filed an FIR under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
However, the Supreme Court noted several crucial facts:
- The relationship was prolonged and emotionally engaged.
- Physical relations took place on multiple occasions.
- The woman initially opposed the accused’s proposal of marriage due to her own complicated matrimonial past.
- Despite such opposition, she continued to meet and engage in intimate relations with the accused.
- She was already married at the time of physical intimacy.
These factors led the Court to conclude that consent was not exclusively based on a promise of marriage and that the essential ingredients of rape were absent.
Consent, Promise of Marriage, and Section 376 IPC
The Supreme Court elaborated on the legal test for consent when tied to a promise of marriage. It recognised that in Indian society, marriage holds deep social and cultural significance, and in some circumstances, a woman may consent to physical intimacy solely based on the assurance of a future lawful marriage.
In such cases, the consent is conditional, and if the promise is proven to be:
- Illusory
- Made dishonestly
- Given in bad faith
- Without any genuine intention to fulfil
then such consent may be vitiated, attracting the offence under Section 376 IPC.
However, the Court made it clear that this principle cannot be applied mechanically. It must be supported by credible evidence and concrete facts, not mere allegations or emotional dissatisfaction arising after the relationship fails.
Long-Term Consensual Relationships Cannot Be Retrospectively Criminalised
The bench stressed that physical intimacy within a long-standing, consensual relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape simply because the relationship deteriorated. Such an approach, the Court warned, would lead to the weaponisation of rape laws in personal disputes.
The Court further questioned why the complainant continued the relationship if she was opposed to marriage, highlighting the inconsistency in her claims. This inconsistency weakened the allegation that consent was solely induced by a false promise of marriage.
High Threshold for ‘Repeated Rape’ Under Section 376(2)(n)
The Supreme Court also observed that the factual matrix failed to meet the stringent threshold required for the offence of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The nature of the relationship and the circumstances indicated mutual consent rather than exploitation or coercion.
The Court cited the precedent of Mahesh Damu Khare v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that unless the physical relationship is shown to be rooted exclusively in deception, the offence of rape cannot be sustained.
Misuse of Rape Laws and Judicial Concern
The judgment reflects growing judicial concern over the misuse of rape provisions in situations arising out of personal relationship failures. The Court underscored that while the law must remain protective of genuine victims, it must not allow its provisions to become tools of vengeance or pressure.
Such misuse not only inflicts irreparable harm on the accused but also erodes public trust in the legal system and trivialises the suffering of genuine victims who deserve justice and compassion.
Bombay High Court Order Set Aside
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), which had earlier refused to quash the FIR. The apex court held that the continuation of criminal proceedings in the present case would amount to abuse of process of law and would lead to grave miscarriage of justice.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This decision serves as an important reaffirmation of the principles governing consent and false promise of marriage in rape cases. It draws a clear line between:
- Genuine sexual exploitation, and
- Consensual relationships that later sour
The ruling strengthens safeguards against arbitrary prosecution while preserving the legal protection available to those genuinely deceived and exploited.
It also sends a strong message that the seriousness of the offence of rape must not be diluted by its casual or vindictive invocation.
Impact on Future Cases
The judgment is expected to serve as a guiding precedent for lower courts in assessing cases involving allegations of rape based on promise of marriage. It reinforces the need for rigorous judicial scrutiny before allowing such prosecutions to proceed, thereby reducing frivolous or malicious litigation.
The ruling will likely influence how courts evaluate consent, evidence, and the intent behind promises made within intimate relationships.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s declaration that converting every sour relationship into an allegation of rape trivialises the seriousness of the offence is a landmark reaffirmation of legal balance. By quashing the case, the Court has reinforced the principle that criminal law must not be misused to settle personal scores or emotional grievances.
At the same time, the judgment remains sensitive to genuine cases where trust is betrayed through manipulative and false promises. This nuanced approach protects the integrity of rape laws while ensuring justice is not reduced to a tool of vengeance.
The ruling stands as a powerful reminder that the sanctity of consent, the seriousness of sexual offences, and the dignity of individuals must be preserved through careful, evidence-based judicial intervention.
Also Read
