The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal case filed against a man accused of rape and unnatural sex on the allegation that he maintained a physical relationship with a woman on the promise of marriage. The Court observed that the facts showed a long-term consensual relationship between two adults who were fully aware of each other’s marital status.
A bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan passed the order on April 20, 2026, while allowing an appeal filed by Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the complainant had separated from her husband in 2012 and later created a matrimonial profile in 2017 seeking a second marriage, even before her divorce was finalized. The accused allegedly contacted her through the matrimonial website, and the two remained in touch for several years.
Read also:- Punjab & Haryana HC Orders CONFED To Pay 7 Years’ Salary, Says Non-Payment Violates Right To Livelihood
The complaint stated that the man assured her that he would marry her. It was alleged that during one visit to Tuljapur in October 2017, he had forcible sexual intercourse with her and also engaged in unnatural sex. However, the FIR itself recorded that the relationship continued afterward, with the parties travelling together, staying in hotels in Gujarat, and maintaining physical relations for nearly four years.
The woman also alleged that she transferred around ₹2.5 lakh to the accused during the course of the relationship. The FIR was eventually lodged in February 2021 after the accused allegedly refused to marry her.
The accused had approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. However, the High Court refused relief, mainly observing that an earlier quashing petition had been withdrawn and that the allegations required a full trial.
The Supreme Court examined the sequence of events and noted several admitted facts, including that both parties were previously married and aware of each other’s marital status. The bench also noted that the complainant herself had joined a matrimonial platform before her divorce was finalized.
The Court observed that despite the allegation regarding the October 2017 incident, the relationship continued for years afterward without any complaint being lodged.
“The parties happily cohabited together between 2017 and 2020 and, thereafter, the relationship soured,” the bench noted.
Referring to earlier judgments on consent and false promises of marriage, the Court reiterated that every failed relationship or breach of promise cannot automatically amount to rape.
The bench quoted earlier precedent stating that there is a distinction between a “false promise” made only to obtain consent and a later failure to fulfil a genuine promise due to changed circumstances.
The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case did not disclose an offence arising from deception on the promise of marriage. It concluded that the continuation of the relationship over several years weakened the prosecution’s case regarding lack of consent.
The Court also disagreed with the High Court’s view that the second quashing petition was not maintainable merely because an earlier petition had been withdrawn.
Accordingly, the Court quashed RCC No. 328/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tuljapur, and set aside the Bombay High Court’s 2025 order. Bail bonds, if any, were also discharged.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2260/2026
Judges: Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Manmohan
Decision Date: April 20, 2026
