Physical relations in long-term consensual relationships do not constitute rape upon breach of promise to marry.

The informant (O.P. No. 2), a Ph.D. scholar and member of a Scheduled Caste, alleged that the appellant established physical relations with her starting in 2014 under a false promise of marriage.

She further alleged that the appellant dishonestly obtained approximately Rs. 15,00,000 for a business venture, took her ATM card and jewellery, and issued two forged cheques of Rs. 5,00,000 each which were dishonoured.

After the appellant married another woman in 2019, the relationship soured, leading to an FIR in 2020 and a subsequent chargesheet under Sections 376, 504, 506, 406, and 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant challenged the trial court’s orders dated 18.11.2024 (rejecting discharge) and 27.01.2026 (framing charges).

1. Whether the physical relationship between the parties, spanning several years, constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC on the ground of a "misconception of fact" or false promise of marriage.

2. Whether the financial transactions and dishonoured cheques constitute criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC or are predominantly civil/commercial in nature.

3. Whether the prosecution under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is sustainable in the absence of evidence that the alleged offences were committed specifically because of the victim’s caste identity.

The Court applied the principles of discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., holding that a judge must sift evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists rather than acting as a "post office".

Regarding rape, it relied on the distinction between a "false promise" made in bad faith from inception and a "breach of promise".

For cheating (Sec. 420 IPC), it held that dishonest intention must exist at the inception.

Regarding the SC/ST Act, it ruled that the mere fact that a victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste is insufficient; the offence must be committed on the ground of that caste identity.

The Court observed that the informant, a well-educated scholar, entered into a long-standing consensual relationship where physical intimacy occurred for years without a specific romantic relationship, negating the claim of a "false promise" from inception.

The Court noted the absence of specific dates or times for the alleged rape and highlighted that the informant only raised rape allegations in her Section 161 statement and not in the initial FIR.

Regarding financial disputes, the Court found the transaction of Rs. 15,00,000 to be commercial; the failure to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the bounced cheques indicated an attempt to give a civil dispute a criminal color.

There was no evidence that the appellant's actions were motivated by the victim's caste, thus failing the "nexus" test required for the SC/ST Act.

The Court allowed both appeals and set aside the impugned orders dated 18.11.2024 and 27.01.2026, discharging the appellant of all offences and discharging bail bonds and sureties.