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

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Equality Before Law

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Allows Collection of Voice Samples from Witnesses — Not Just Accused Persons