The Supreme Court of India has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sexual exploitation on a false promise of marriage. The Court held that Consensual Relationship Criminal Prosecution cannot follow merely because a three-year relationship between educated adults later breaks down. A Division Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran said the facts showed a voluntary relationship rather than coercion or deception.
By Saima Anjum
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an FIR that the complainant filed in 2025. She accused the appellant of sexually exploiting her after promising to marry her and later refusing to do so.
After the police filed a chargesheet, the accused approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP). He sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
The complainant was an engineering graduate preparing for competitive examinations. She met the appellant at an educational academy where both studied. They later entered into a romantic relationship.
Their families also discussed marriage. The couple began a physical relationship at the complainant’s residence. The relationship continued for about three years.
Consent and Misconception of Fact
The prosecution alleged that the appellant obtained consent through a fraudulent promise of marriage. However, the Supreme Court found that the complainant had voluntarily continued the relationship for three years.
The Bench explained that criminal liability does not arise simply because a person later fails to fulfil a promise to marry. The prosecution must show that the accused acted in bad faith from the very beginning.
The Court considered Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and its corresponding provision, Section 28 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). It held that these provisions require evidence of a genuine misconception of fact.
Supreme Court Relies on Earlier Precedent
The Supreme Court referred to Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana. It reiterated that courts must distinguish between a false promise made from the outset and a promise that later remains unfulfilled.
To establish rape on the pretext of marriage, the prosecution must show that the accused never intended to honour the promise when he made it. A later change in circumstances or breakdown of a relationship does not, by itself, establish fraudulent intent.
Undertaking Before the Counselling Centre
The appellant had also agreed to marry the complainant before Mahila Thana Bilaspur. However, the Court did not treat this undertaking as proof that he had deceived her at the start of their relationship.
The Bench observed that an undertaking obtained under the threat of criminal prosecution cannot establish the original intention of the accused. Such an undertaking also cannot independently prove criminal culpability.
Court Notes Voluntary Three-Year Relationship
The complainant alleged that the appellant visited her residence when her mother was away. The Court noted that the appellant could logically have received this information from the complainant herself.
The Bench also considered the duration and circumstances of the relationship. Both parties maintained the relationship for three years, while their families discussed marriage.
The marriage proposal eventually failed. The complainant then initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant.
The Court also considered her statement that she would withdraw the charges if the appellant married her. According to the Bench, criminal law cannot become leverage to compel marriage after a consensual relationship ends.
The Court stated:
“A criminal prosecution cannot be reduced to a strong-arm tactic.”
Criminal Law Cannot Become a Pressure Tactic
The Supreme Court stressed that courts cannot loosely infer lack of consent when two adults willingly maintained a physical relationship over a substantial period.
The Bench found no material showing that the appellant had fraudulently induced the complainant into the relationship from its inception. It therefore rejected the basis for continuing the prosecution.
The ruling reinforces the distinction between a deliberate false promise from the outset and the later breakdown of a genuine relationship. In examining Consensual Relationship Criminal Prosecution, courts must assess whether evidence actually establishes coercion, misconception of fact, or fraudulent intent at the beginning of the relationship.
Finding no criminal culpability against the appellant, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings and allowed the appeal.
