"We Had A Sixth Sense That Appellant And Prosecutrix Could Be Brought Together": Supreme Court Quashes Rape Conviction After Parties Marry
The Court also invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to order payment of the arrears of salary to the appellant, upon revocation of his suspension, which was based on conviction.
The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings and a conviction against a man charged with rape under the pretext of a false promise of marriage.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “It is submitted that since the parties are residing together, the second respondent-wife of the appellant submitted that the criminal proceedings that she had initiated as against the appellant herein may not be continued and in fact they may be quashed.”
AOR Rajeev Singh Samant Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker appeared for the Respondents.
An appeal was filed assailing the order rejecting an application seeking suspension of sentence.
The facts of the case are that the Appellant and the Respondent-Prosecutirx met in 2015 on a social media platform. Thereafter, both parties entered into a consensual physical relationship with each other, wherein the Respondent-Prosecutrix claimed that she acted on the alleged false promise of marriage given to her by the Appellant herein. Aggrieved by the non-fulfilment of the said promise to marry, the Respondent-Prosecutrix filed an FIR under Section 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Consequently, the Appellant was convicted under Sections 376(2)(n) and 417 of the IPC.
During the hearing of the matter, the Court, on a consideration of the facts of the case, thought that the appellant and the Respondent-prosecutrix could be brought together once again if they decide to marry each other. Therefore, the Court suggested to the counsel for the respective parties to seek instructions.
"This is one of those rare cases where on the intervention of this Court the appellant herein, who had applied to seek suspension of his sentence was ultimately benefitted by quashing of his conviction as well as the sentence. This is owing to the fact that when the matter came up before this Court by assailing the rejection of suspension of sentence by the High Court, on a consideration of the facts of the case, we had a sixth sense that the appellant and the respondent prosecutrix could be brought together once again if they decided to marry each other", the Court noted.
When the parties appeared before the Court, the Court was informed that they were willing to marry each other. Hence, the Court granted bail to the Appellant. The marriage between the parties took place in July, 2025, and the parties have been residing together since then.
“We think that owing to a misunderstanding the consensual relationship between the parties was given acriminal colour and converted into an offence of false promise of marriage whereas the parties, in fact, intended to marry each other. It was only owing to the appellant seeking postponement in the date of marriage which may have led to insecurity in the mind of the respondent prosecutrix and filing of the criminal complaint.”, the Court said.
It was ordered, “Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the developments that have taken place in this appeal, we think interest of justice would be sub-served if the FIR No. 29 of 2021 dated 02.11.2021 lodged with Women Police Station, District Sagar and the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar and the order of conviction and sentence passed dated12.04.2024 therein, stand quashed…Consequently, CRA No.4869 of 2024 pending on the file of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is rendered infructuous.”
The Court also directed the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, to revoke the order of suspension and to pay the arrears of salary to the appellant.
Accordingly, the Appeal was disposed of.
Cause Title: Sandeep Singh Thakur v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 1499]
Appearances:
Appellant: AOR Rajeev Singh Samant Singh, Advocates Anu H. Kiritthika and Rohit Singh.
Respondents: AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocates Abhimanyu Singh, Chinmoy Chaitanya and Silpi S Swain.