Rape charges on false promise of marriage are unsustainable where the complainant is already legally married.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the physical relationship between the parties could be categorized as rape under Section 376 of the IPC given the complainant's existing marital status and the nature of the consent

The court held

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order

It also directed

The Court held that the relationship was consensual and lacked the element of deception necessary to constitute an offense under Section 376

Consequently, the Court quashed FIR No. 127 dated 28.03.2024 (PS Kheripul, Faridabad) and all subsequent proceedings, further directing the cancellation of the appellant’s bail bonds

01Facts

The appellant was accused under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC following an FIR registered on March 28, 2024

p. 1, 5

The complainant, an in-charge of a massage parlour, alleged that the appellant, a customer, engaged in a physical relationship with her from August 2023 to March 2024 based on a false promise of marriage

p. 2, 4

After the appellant married another woman on March 12, 2024, a quarrel ensued on March 15, 2024, leading to the FIR

p. 5

The complainant was admittedly married with two children at the time of the relationship

p. 3, 5

The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to quash the FIR, distinguishing the case on the grounds of impregnation and the pending DNA profile report of the child (who subsequently passed away)

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the physical relationship between the parties could be categorized as rape under Section 376 of the IPC given the complainant's existing marital status and the nature of the consent

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed despite the pendency of a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding the paternity of the child

p. 5

03Law Applied

principles established in Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (2025 SCC Online SC 1230), which held that a consensual relationship does not amount to rape where the complainant is already married and thus cannot claim deception regarding a promise of marriage

p. 2, 3

quashing powers, as sought by the appellant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 376 Section 506

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the relationship was "obviously and admittedly consensual," spanning several months within the workplace of the complainant

p. 4, 5

the allegations in the FIR indicated consent through frequent interaction

p. 3

there was no evidence of inducement, misrepresentation, coercion, or threat

p. 4

the complainant’s status as a married woman with children rendered a "promise of marriage" legally impossible and thus incapable of being a tool of deception

p. 4, 5

the lack of divorce or separation from her husband further negated the possibility of a valid marriage promise

p. 5

The Court rejected the State's argument regarding the pending FSL report, reasoning that even if paternity were established, the underlying consent "demolishes" the charge of rape on the pretext of marriage

p. 5

05Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order

p. 5, 6

The Court held that the relationship was consensual and lacked the element of deception necessary to constitute an offense under Section 376

p. 5

Consequently, the Court quashed FIR No. 127 dated 28.03.2024 (PS Kheripul, Faridabad) and all subsequent proceedings, further directing the cancellation of the appellant’s bail bonds

p. 5, 6

LawLens.Supreme Court

Original Court PDF