Misuse of Rape Law After Failed Relationships: Supreme Court Flags “Profound Concern”
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has once again drawn a firm line between genuine cases of sexual exploitation and criminal proceedings arising out of failed consensual relationships, warning that indiscriminate invocation of rape charges poses a “profound concern” for both justice delivery and the credibility of criminal law.
In a significant judgment delivered by a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh-based advocate accused of rape on the alleged false promise of marriage, holding that criminal law cannot be weaponised to settle personal scores after a relationship turns sour.
Factual Background of the Case
Allegations by the Complainant
The complainant, a 33-year-old advocate, alleged that:
She entered into a physical relationship with the accused advocate from September 2022
The relationship continued till January 2025
The accused allegedly promised to marry her
She became pregnant during the relationship and was compelled to undergo an abortion
After a confrontation with the accused’s family, she lodged an FIR in February 2025
Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises repeated rape on the same woman.
Chhattisgarh High Court Order Under Challenge
The Chhattisgarh High Court (2025) declined to quash the FIR, holding that the allegations warranted trial.
Aggrieved by this refusal, the accused approached the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court’s Core Findings
1. Consent and Promise of Marriage: The Legal Threshold
The Supreme Court reiterated settled law that:
Not every breach of a promise to marry amounts to rape.
For an offence of rape to be made out on the ground of a false promise of marriage:
The promise must be false from the very inception
It must be made solely to obtain sexual consent
The false promise must have a direct nexus with the woman’s consent
A subsequent failure to marry, or a relationship breaking down due to changed circumstances, does not ipso facto attract Section 376 IPC.
2. Legal Impossibility of the Promise
A decisive factor in the Court’s reasoning was the complainant’s subsisting marriage.
The bench noted:
The complainant was legally married throughout the alleged relationship
Her divorce petition was still pending
Any promise of marriage made during the subsistence of a valid marriage is void ab initio
This flows directly from Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits bigamous marriages.
The Court observed that:
A promise which is legally impossible to perform cannot form the basis of inducement under criminal law.
3. Knowledge of Law by the Complainant
The Supreme Court gave weight to the fact that:
The complainant was a practising advocate
She had disclosed her marital status to the accused at the outset
In such circumstances, the Court held that the complainant could not plausibly claim deception, as:
Claiming awareness of her marriage
And simultaneously alleging inducement by a promise of marriage
were “antagonistic and antithetical” assertions.
Judicial Concern Over Criminal Law Misuse
The bench expressed serious concern over a growing trend of:
Criminalising failed relationships
Converting consensual intimacy into allegations of rape post-breakup
The Court cautioned that such misuse:
Trivialises the gravity of rape as an offence
Causes irreparable reputational harm to the accused
Burdens an already overstrained criminal justice system
Key Judicial Precedents Relied Upon
The judgment relied on and reaffirmed several important Supreme Court rulings:
Prashant v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Held that:
A mere breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape
Courts must examine intent at inception, not hindsight outcomes
Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra
Reiterated that:
Consensual relationships between adults
Cannot be criminalised merely because they later turn acrimonious
The bench reaffirmed the principle that:
“A mere break-up of a relationship between a consenting couple cannot result in the initiation of criminal proceedings.”
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 375 – Definition of rape (consent vitiated by misconception of fact)
Section 376(2)(n) – Punishment for repeated rape
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 5(i) – Prohibition of marriage during subsistence of a prior valid marriage
Constitution of India
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty, encompassing:
Protection from arbitrary criminal prosecution
Right to reputation and dignity
Constitutional Balancing by the Court
While reaffirming the need to protect victims of sexual violence, the Supreme Court stressed that:
Article 21 protections apply equally to the accused
Criminal law must not be used as an instrument of coercion or retaliation
Judicial scrutiny at the threshold is essential to prevent abuse of process
Conclusion: A Necessary Judicial Course Correction
The Supreme Court’s ruling serves as a measured but firm reminder that:
Rape law exists to punish sexual exploitation and coercion
Not to penalise failed relationships between consenting adults
By insisting on intent at inception, legal feasibility, and contextual consent, the Court has reinforced a principled framework that protects:
Genuine survivors of sexual violence
And individuals from unjust criminal prosecution
At a time when courts face mounting pendency, the judgment underscores that criminal law must remain a shield for justice — not a sword for personal vendetta.

Comments
Post a Comment