“This Court has held time and again that the mere fact that the parties engaged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not constitute rape in every case,” the Supreme Court said. File | Photo credit: PTI
The Supreme Court on Thursday (February 5, 2026) quashed an FIR of alleged rape under the false pretext of marriage, saying the facts unmistakably pointed to a classic case of a consensual relationship turning violent.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the parties should have exercised restraint and refrained from involving the state in their personal relations which had turned to hatred.
The Supreme Court referred to some of its earlier verdicts, including one that noted a worrying tendency for failed or broken relationships to take on the color of criminality.
The bench delivered its verdict on an appeal against an order of the Chhattisgarh high court in March last year, which refused to quash proceedings arising out of an FIR registered in Bilaspur district in February 2025.
The court noted that both the complainant and the accused in the case were lawyers, the former being a 33-year-old married woman and mother of a minor child.
“This Court has time and again held that the mere fact that the parties indulged in physical relations on the basis of a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case,” the Bench said.
“After a careful consideration of the record in this case, we are unable to discern any material to warrant the application of Section 376(2)(n) IPC. The facts of this case unmistakably suggest a classic case of consensual relationship turning sour,” the Bench said.
He said that Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides enhanced punishment in cases where a woman is repeatedly raped.
The Bench said that the courts have to be extremely careful and circumspect in identifying genuine cases filed under this provision by identifying the essential ingredients constituting the offence.
“Such genuine cases meriting the prosecution of the accused must be clearly separated from litigation arising from cases of consensual relationships between consenting adults that are acrimonious due to disputes and disagreements or future change of mind,” it said.
The Bench observed that although the divorce proceedings between the complainant and her husband were pending, it was not at all possible to argue that she was fit to marry the accused in September 2022, when the first of many cases of rape under the false pretext of marriage was alleged.
“In other words, the law prohibits bigamous unions and therefore makes it impossible for the parties to contract a second marriage during the existence of the first marriage,” he said.
The court said it was difficult to accept the view that the applicant, herself a lawyer, disregarded this settled legal position and was induced by the accused to engage in sexual intercourse under the pretense of marriage, especially when they were aware of her marital status.
She stated that the applicant is not a naive or gullible woman incapable of making decisions for herself.
The court said the applicant should have exercised her prudence and discretion before involving the already burdened state machinery in a roving criminal case.
He stated that the crime accused of the accused was not proven at all.
By setting aside the order of the High Court, the court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of it.
Published – 6 Feb 2026 07:03 IST
