The Supreme Court has discharged a man facing prosecution for rape, cheating and offences relating to a second marriage, holding that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the offences and that the criminal proceedings could not continue.

A Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment on October 30, 2026, in Santhosh Kumar N.P. v. State–Station House Officer, Kadirur Police & Anr.

Background of the case

The complainant, who had previously been married, alleged that the appellant represented himself as a bachelor and married her at a temple in Mysuru in 1996. They lived together until 2003, and she claimed to have consented to sexual relations believing herself to be his legally wedded wife.

The appellant later disclosed that he was already married and had two children. Following the end of their relationship, the complainant initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and subsequently filed complaints alleging offences under Sections 376, 420, 493, 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court rejected the appellant’s discharge application, and the Kerala High Court upheld that decision. He approached the Supreme Court challenging the continuation of the prosecution.

Supreme Court: Ingredients of alleged offences not made out

The Court held that, even if the allegations in the FIR and chargesheet were taken at face value, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were absent.

On the rape allegation, the Bench noted that the complainant had become aware of the appellant’s earlier marriage within months of their cohabitation but continued the relationship for several years. In the circumstances, the Court found the relationship to be consensual and held that the repeated sexual acts could not be artificially separated from the continuing relationship to attract Section 376(2)(n) IPC.

The Court observed that a relationship turning sour cannot, by itself, retrospectively convert consensual sexual acts into rape. It cautioned against using criminal law to settle personal scores following the breakdown of relationships.

Discharge principles reiterated

The judgment reiterated that, at the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC, the court must make a limited assessment of the material to determine whether a prima facie case exists. It must consider the prosecution material as well as the possibilities raised by the accused, without conducting a full trial.

The Bench also found that the allegations did not establish cheating under Section 420 IPC, as there was no material showing that the complainant had been dishonestly induced to deliver property or deal with a valuable security. The ingredients of Sections 493, 494 and 495 IPC were also found to be absent.

The Court clarified that genuine cases involving deception about marital status may vitiate consent, but such conclusions must be based on the facts and evidence of each case.

Proceedings quashed

Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the Kerala High Court and discharged the appellant from all the offences alleged against him.

Representation:-

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate; Mr. Manu Krishnan G, AOR; Mr. Akash Rajeev, Advocate; Mr. Naman Vashishtha, Advocate; Mr. Raunak Aurora, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR; Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Advocate; Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR; Ms. Niveditha R. Menon, Advocate; Ms. Ambika Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Verma, Advocate; Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocate.