Married Woman Cannot Make "Promise Of Marriage" Claim: Supreme Court Quashes Advocate's Rape Case Against Advocate

The Court while quashing the Chhattisgarh High Court's order, noted that the complainant, a married advocate aware of her legal position, was in a consensual relationship and that the allegation of rape on a promise of marriage, in the given circumstances, did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 376 IPC. Further cautioned that failed or soured personal relationships cannot be routinely given the colour of rape prosecutions.

The bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, "...it is an admitted fact that the complainant-respondent No.3, within the first initial meetings told the accused-appellant that she was a married woman with divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court. Therefore, in the same breath, she cannot be allowed to claim and allege that she was also coaxed by the accused-appellant into having a physical relationship with him on the false pretext of marriage as the two facts cannot stand together on the same plane and simultaneously as both are antagonistic and antithetical to each other. In our opinion, the facts of the present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both the parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving the State into their personal relationship turning rancour".

While noting Justice Nagarathna’s earlier judgment in Samadhan vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2528 it also noted, “…this Court has, on numerous occasions, taken note of the disquieting tendency wherein failed or broken relationships are given the colour of criminality. The offence of rape, being of the gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. To convert every soured relationship into an offence of rape not only trivialises the seriousness of the offence but also inflicts upon the accused indelible stigma and grave injustice. Such instances transcend the realm of mere personal discord. The misuse of the criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern for the judiciary already facing a heavy load and calls for condemnation”.

Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR appeared for the appellant, and Senior Advocate Dr. Rajesh Pandey and Praneet Pranav, D.A.G appeared for the respondents.

As per the purported facts, the complainant, a 33-year-old advocate, was already married and had a 10–11-year-old son. Though divorce proceedings between her and her husband were pending, her marriage was legally subsisting at the time she came into contact with the accused advocate in September 2022.

The two Advocates developed a close relationship and remained in contact. However, the woman later alleged that the accused had physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage, repeatedly assuring her that he would marry her, and that she was even forced to abort a pregnancy.

Subsequently, an FIR under Section 376(2)(n) IPC (repeated rape) was registered on 06-02-2025, and a chargesheet was filed, and thereafter the sessions trial commenced.

Pertinently, the accused-applicant had earlier secured anticipatory bail but failed in his attempt before the High Court to quash the FIR, which held that the issue of consent required trial.

Now, allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court noted a crucial legal bar, it said, under Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 4(i) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, a person cannot contract a second marriage during the subsistence of the first. Since the complainant was already married, any alleged promise of marriage by the accused was legally unenforceable and incapable of being acted upon, as both parties were aware of her marital status from the outset.

Therefore, the Court held, it was untenable to claim that her consent for sexual relations was obtained by deception regarding marriage.

The Bench thus emphasising the age of the complainant, held, that it was a consensual relationship that later turned acrimonious, and not one involving coercion or absence of consent. The essential ingredients required to establish rape on the basis of a false promise of marriage namely, a false promise made from the outset solely to obtain consent were not made out.

Accordingly, the bench set aside the impugned order dated 03-03-2025 and consequently, the FIR and the chargesheet, further quashed the consequent proceedings arising out of the said proceedings.

Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 124]

Appearances:

Appellant: Jugul Kishor Gupta, AOR, Advocate.

Respondent: Praneet Pranav, D.A.G., Vinayak Sharma, Standing Counsel, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, AOR, Kshitiz Aggarwal, Yashvardhan Shah, Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv., Ayushi Pandey, Rishabh, Adv., Aswathi M.K., AOR, Advocates.