New Delhi, May 29

The Supreme Court of India on Monday quashed a rape case filed against a young man by a married woman, observing that the claim of a consensual sexual relationship induced by a false promise of marriage was not plausible in the circumstances of the case.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal held that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process and set aside the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had refused to quash the FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

 Court’s Observations

The apex court noted that the complainant was a married woman, living separately from her husband, who alleged that the accused had engaged in sexual relations with her under the pretext of marrying her.

However, the Court found the premise unconvincing, emphasizing that  the claim of being misled into a physical relationship by a promise of marriage lacked credibility, especially considering the complainant’s age and marital status.

“It is difficult to believe that a married woman could have been induced into such a relationship purely on the assurance of marriage,” the Court said, dismissing the rape charge as legally untenable.

The bench further noted that there was no indication of coercion or force and that the relationship appeared consensual.

 Legal Context

The judgment comes amid increasing scrutiny of the misuse of Section 376 IPC in cases involving failed relationships. The Supreme Court has, in several prior rulings, clarified that consensual physical relations between adults cannot automatically be construed as rape merely because the relationship later ended or a promise of marriage did not materialize.

Courts have repeatedly distinguished between breach of promise and false promise made with malicious intent—the latter being an essential ingredient for attracting the offence of rape.

 Case Background

The complaint was filed in 2019 in Madhya Pradesh, and the accused had approached the Supreme Court after the High Court declined to interfere with the ongoing trial. With this ruling, the FIR and subsequent proceedings stand quashed.