The Supreme Court recently dismissed a rape case against a 25-year-old student accused of having a sexual relationship with a woman on the false promise of marriage. The Court made it clear that the relationship between the parties was purely consensual.

Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Transfer of Four High Court Chief Justices

In this case, the woman was already married at the time the relationship began. The Court observed, “Such promise, to begin with, was illegal and unenforceable.” It held that a promise of marriage by a married woman cannot be considered a valid or legal promise. Therefore, the case did not amount to rape on the grounds of a false promise of marriage.

The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma, emphasized that “a consensual relationship turning sour or partners becoming distant cannot be a ground for invoking criminal charges. Such conduct burdens the courts and wrongly stains the accused's reputation.” The Court also reminded that every failed promise of marriage should not automatically be treated as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Read also: Supreme Court Questions Haryana Govt On NHRC's Concerns Over FIR Against Ali Khan Mahmudabad

The case had earlier been rejected by the Bombay High Court, but the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered under Sections 376 (rape), 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 377 (unnatural sex), 504 (insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The woman, who was married but separated (not legally divorced), had a four-year-old child and accused the appellant of having sexual relations with her on a false promise of marriage. However, the Supreme Court found no evidence that the appellant tricked or misled the woman. It was noted that the woman had already obtained a Khulanama (divorce deed) from her previous husband only after the alleged relationship began.

Read also: Rahul Gandhi Alleges Savarkar’s Family Link with Godse in Pune Defamation Case

“There is no material to prove any inducement or false promise by the accused,” the Court said. “It is also unreasonable to think that a woman with a child, already married, would continue a relationship for over 12 months and even meet the accused at lodges if she had been sexually assaulted or deceived.”

The Court concluded that the complaint did not match the woman’s conduct. Relying on legal principles from the Bhajan Lal case, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and allowed the appeal.

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

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Savadikar, Adv.

For Respondent(s): Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Nar Hari Singh, AOR Mr. Amit Balasaheb Thorat, Adv.