A break-up of consensual relationship between two adults cannot be treated as a criminal offence to invoke rape charges against the man, the Supreme Court held on Monday while quashing a rape case filed against a lawyer from Aurangabad [Samadhan vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.].
A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan stressed that a relationship cannot be retrospectively converted into rape merely because it ended in disagreement or disappointment, and that allegations of rape on false promise to marry must be supported by clear evidence.
“A mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in initiation of criminal proceedings… What was a consensual relationship at the initial stages cannot be given a colour of criminality when the said relationship does not fructify into a marital relationship,” the Bench said.
It added that for a case of rape on the basis of false promise of marriage, it must be shown that the promise was deceitful from the very beginning and that the woman’s consent stemmed solely from that misrepresentation.
“There is a clear distinction between rape and consensual sex. The court must carefully examine whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had made a false promise only to satisfy his lust,” the Bench said.
It set aside a Bombay High Court order refusing to quash an FIR that accused the lawyer of repeatedly raping a woman under the false promise of marriage. The Court found that the relationship between the two was voluntary and sustained over three years and that the woman had never alleged coercion or lack of consent during that period.
The case stemmed from a 2024 FIR lodged in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The complainant, a married woman living separately from her husband, had met the lawyer in 2022 when he was assisting her in maintenance proceedings. Over time, the two became close and entered into a physical relationship.
According to the complaint, the lawyer had assured her that he would marry her but later backed out. The woman alleged that she conceived multiple times and terminated the pregnancies with his consent. When he ultimately refused to marry her and threatened her, she filed the FIR for rape under the false promise of marriage.
The lawyer obtained anticipatory bail from the trial court and later sought to have the case quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court rejected his plea after noting that the allegations required trial and that his role as her legal advisor created a fiduciary relationship. He then move the top court.
Before the Supreme Court, he argued that the complaint was vindictive and lodged the case only after he declined to pay ₹1.5 lakh allegedly demanded by the woman. He pointed out that she had never lodged any complaint of sexual assault during their three-year relationship.
The Court noted that the allegations revealed an ongoing relationship marked by frequent meetings and consensual intimacy, not acts of coercion or deceit. It found no evidence that the promise of marriage had been false from the outset or that the woman’s consent had been vitiated.
The Bench explained that sexual relations traceable to mutual affection could not be criminalised simply because a promise of marriage did not materialise.
“The present case is not one where the appellant lured the complainant solely for physical pleasure and then vanished. The relationship continued for three long years, which is a considerable period of time,” the Court said.
The judgment warned against the growing misuse of rape provisions in cases of failed relationships.
“To convert every sour relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such misuse of the criminal justice machinery is a matter of profound concern,” the Bench observed.
The Court reiterated that when two adults willingly maintain a relationship over time, the element of consent cannot be retrospectively withdrawn.
The judges observed that the woman, a major and educated individual, had voluntarily continued the relationship despite the fact that her marriage was subsisting. The Court emphasised that no incident suggested coercion, inducement or physical threat.
“The acts complained of occurred within the contours of a relationship that was voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of court machinery,” the judgment held.
The appellant-lawyer was represented by advocates Sneha Sanjay Botwe, Bharat S Doifode, Siddharth S Chapalgaonkar, Akash Tripathi and Ashraf Patel.
The respondents were represented by advocates Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Chitransha Singh Sikarwar and Radhika Gautam.
[Read Judgment]