SP vs. DSP in rape on promise to marry case: Why Supreme Court said parties should have seen astrologer first

In a light-hearted remark during an otherwise serious hearing, the Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a man accused of rape on the pretext of marriage should have checked the horoscope before entering into the relationship, instead of later backing out of the alleged promise due to a horoscope mismatch..The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea moved by the victim-complainant against quashing of her case by Patna High Court in 2024. When the bench asked on what basis the First Information Report (FIR) had been filed, the woman’s counsel said that the accused-man had entered into sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage. Justice Pardiwala sought to confirm the allegation.“You maintained the relationship on the basis of his assurance? That’s your case?” the judge asked.The counsel responded that the accused had himself initiated the relationship but later refused to marry her. When the bench asked why the man had backed out, the lawyer said, “Because the horoscopes did not match.”Smiling, Justice Pardiwala remarked that astrology appeared to have been consulted rather late in the relationship.“Well, that’s a very important question. If stars don’t match, how will you lead a good marital life? So before entering into the relationship you should have got the horoscopes matched na. Only at the time of marriage you consulted an astrologer,” the judge remarked..In the present case, while accused was a a Superintendent of Police, the complainant was a a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Both had served together in a district in 2014. .During today's hearing, the Court inquired about earlier attempts to resolve the matter.Senior Advocate K Parameshwar, appearing for the accused officer, said the parties had been asked in a previous order to explore settlement but the proposed amount was beyond his client’s capacity.“Five crores is beyond my capacity. I am now married. I have two kids,” the senior counsel said.Justice Viswanathan agreed that the amount was substantial. The complainant’s counsel replied that her client had been forced into the relationship.However, the bench was not convinced with the submission.“Who would believe this? You are a DSP,” Justice Pardiwala remarked.The counsel explained that the accused, being her superior, had pursued her persistently and initiated communication through messages. The bench then asked about their ages. It was submitted that while the woman was above 40 years old, the accused officer was seven years younger. .The bench then opined that the matter should be resolved through mediation than prolonged litigation.“Whatever might have happened in the past, in the peculiar facts of this case, we believe that fighting with each other is not going to be in the interest of the parties,” the Court said.To facilitate a possible resolution, the bench appointed Justice Gita Mittal, former Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, as mediator to help the parties arrive at an amicable settlement.The parties have been directed to contact the mediator and work out the modalities for the mediation process.