Can rape case on false promise to marry be settled amicably? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court recently allowed amicable settlement of a rape case filed on the allegation of sexual intercourse under the false promise of marriage [X vs. State of Kerala & Anr.].

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan allowed the settlement after both the accused and the complainant expressed their willingness to resolve the matter and move on.

The case originated from a complaint lodged at Balussery Police Station in Kerala on May 24, 2022. The complainant, a married woman separated from her husband, alleged that the accused had initially helped her in her divorce litigation.

According to the FIR, he later invited her to his house in December 2017 and forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse. She also alleged that he photographed her without consent and threatened to share the pictures with her husband if she revealed the incident.

She further alleged that between 2018 and 2022, the accused repeatedly promised to marry her and had sexual relations with her at his friend’s house and at various resorts. The complaint also stated that he took ₹3.54 lakh and gold ornaments worth 2.5 sovereigns from her and refused to return them, amounting to cheating and criminal intimidation.

Upon registration of the First information report (FIR), the accused first approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail, but his plea was dismissed. The High Court observed that the allegations of rape required custodial interrogation and refused to grant relief.

Subsequently, the accused filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court dismissed this petition too, holding that the allegations required investigation and could not be quashed at that stage.

Aggrieved by these two orders, the accused approached the Supreme Court through separate special leave petitions.

On December 19, the Supreme Court issued notice and directed that no coercive action be taken against the accused. During subsequent hearings, the bench encouraged the parties to consider an amicable resolution.

By March 2025, both sides indicated their willingness to settle the matter. The accused offered to return the amount and gold ornaments allegedly taken from the complainant.

Taking note of this development, the bench allowed the settlement and issued detailed directions to facilitate the same.

The Court ordered that the money deposited by the accused before the trial court be released to the complainant or her nominee after due verification.

[Read Order]