The Supreme Court recently quashed a rape case against a 25-year old student, accused of building sexual relationship with a woman on the pretext of false promise of marriage, stating that the relationship was purely consensual.

In this case, the complainant-woman was already married when the parties had begun their relationship. The Court therefore noted that this cannot be treated as a case of false promise to marry. In such circumstances, the Court observed that “such promise, to begin with, was illegal and unenforceable.”

The Court reiterated that mere breach of marriage promise doesn’t amount to rape on false promise of marriage unless there was fraudulent intent on the accused’s part from the beginning of the relationship.

“In our considered view, this is also not a case where there was a false promise to marry to begin with. 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. This Court has time and again warned against the misuse of the provisions, and has termed it 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 bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma observed.

The Appellant/accused approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR registered under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 377 (unnatural sex), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The appellant, a 23-year-old student at the time of the alleged offence, was accused by a married(but separated, though not legally divorced) woman (Respondent No. 2), having a four-year-old child, of sexual intercourse under false promise of marriage.

The Supreme Court examined whether the allegations constituted a cognizable offence or if the case was maliciously filed, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

Upon perusing the available records, the judgment authored by Justice Sharma noted that the complainant was already married (though separated) when the relationship began, and her Khulanama (divorce deed) was executed later.

 Thus, the appellant’s alleged “promise to marry” was legally unenforceable as she was already in a marriage while having a consensual relationship with the Appellant.

The Court noted that the woman not only sustained her relationship for over 12 months, but continued to visit him in lodges on two separate occasions.

“The narrative of the Complainant/Respondent no. 2 does not corroborate with her conduct,” the Court said.

Case Title: AMOL BHAGWAN NEHUL VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.