Karnataka HC Quashes Rape Case After Six-Year Consensual Relationship, Says Later Refusal To Marry Does Not By Itself Make It Rape

In brief

The question

1. Whether the complaint and charge-sheet material disclosed an offence of rape based on a promise to marry, or instead described a consensual relationship that later ended

The court held

The Court held that the alleged prolonged consensual relationship, followed by the relationship souring and the petitioner’s refusal to marry, did not, on the material considered, disclose rape based on a false promise to marry.

It also directed

It allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in S.C. No. 1463 of 2024 insofar as they concerned the petitioner.

01Facts

Respondent No. 2 complained that she and the petitioner had known each other since 2018 and that, after he promised to marry her, they had sexual intercourse on several occasions between June 2019 and 2024.

pp. 2–3, paras 2–3

She alleged that he later reneged on the promise to marry.

pp. 2–3, paras 2–3

The complaint was registered as Crime No. 238 of 2024 for offences under Sections 506, 376 and 420 of the IPC; a charge sheet was filed, and the case was pending as S.C. No. 1463 of 2024.

pp. 2–3, paras 2–3

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, arguing that the complaint was retaliatory and that the relationship was consensual and sustained over several years.

pp. 3–4, paras 4–11

The State opposed quashing, relying on the complainant’s and her mother’s statements and the medical report.

p. 8, para 12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the complaint and charge-sheet material disclosed an offence of rape based on a promise to marry, or instead described a consensual relationship that later ended

pp. 6–8, paras 6–10 · p. 10, para 17

ii.2. Whether the pending proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed in the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction

p. 2, para 1 · p. 10, para 18

03Law Applied

The Court considered the inherent jurisdiction invoked under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to quash the proceedings.

p. 2, para 1

Applying the principles discussed in Dr. Ramdas @ Ramdas Patil v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 10701/2025, decided 16 October 2026, the Court stated that a promise to marry supports an offence of rape only where it was made with an intention not to fulfil it; a consensual relationship between adults over a sustained period does not become rape merely because the relationship later sours or the man declines to marry.

pp. 4–7, paras 7–8 · p. 10, para 17

The Court relied on the authorities reviewed in Dr. Ramdas, including Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar, Shambhu Kharwar and Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi, among others, as supporting that distinction.

pp. 4–7, para 7

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 506 Section 376 Section 420

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 69

04Reasoning

The complaint described a relationship beginning in 2018 and sexual intercourse on multiple occasions over the following years.

pp. 8–9, paras 15–16

The Court noted that the parties were young adults and that the complainant continued to visit the petitioner’s relatives’ homes and other locations during the relationship.

pp. 8–9, paras 15–16

It concluded that the account indicated a consensual relationship and that the complaint made only a general assertion of a promise to marry, without establishing the required intention from the outset not to fulfil it.

pp. 7–8, paras 9–10 · p. 10, para 17

The State’s reliance on statements and medical evidence did not alter the Court’s conclusion on whether the alleged facts disclosed rape on the asserted promise-to-marry basis.

pp. 8–10, paras 12, 17