In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the misuse of rape allegations in cases where consensual relationships turn sour, stating that a married woman cannot file a rape case against a man based on the claim that she entered into a sexual relationship with him upon a false promise of marriage.
The bench, consisting of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the judgment, emphasizing that if a woman is already married, she is not legally eligible for marriage and therefore cannot claim that a false promise of marriage vitiated her consent. The court highlighted that such a promise would not be legally enforceable, as it violates Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and Section 4(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, both of which prohibit marriage when either party has a living spouse.
The case involved a woman advocate who filed a complaint against a fellow lawyer, alleging rape on the false promise of marriage. The complainant was married in 2011, and although divorce proceedings had been initiated, they were dismissed in November 2024, with an appeal pending. Her relationship with the accused began in September 2022, and in February 2025, she filed a First Information Report (FIR), alleging repeated rape, resulting in pregnancy and a forced abortion. The accused argued that the relationship was consensual and that he was being blackmailed into marriage, seeking to quash the FIR.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, which had refused to quash the proceedings, stating that questions of consent required a trial. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, quashed the FIR, charge-sheet, and entire criminal proceedings, asserting that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not constitute rape.
The court drew a distinction between a false promise and a mere breach of promise, referencing previous judgments. It emphasized that consent does not vanish merely because a relationship turns bitter and that criminal law should not be weaponized to settle personal scores, especially when the relationship was consensual and the woman was legally married. The court also noted that the complainant, being an advocate, was aware of her marital status and the legal restrictions against bigamy.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that courts must be cautious in identifying genuine rape cases, particularly given the increasing misuse of the law. The ruling sends a clear message that Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code is not intended for prolonged consensual relationships. The court also stated that not every failed relationship or broken promise constitutes rape, especially when there is no fraudulent intent. Filing such cases misuses the law and can be considered a tool of vengeance.