Physical Intimacy Can’t Be Branded As Rape Offence Merely Because Relationship Failed To Culminate In Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against Advocate

The Supreme Court held that physical intimacy cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of rape offence merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused Advocate, challenging the Order of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, which dismissed his Application seeking quashing of FIR.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “We find that the present case is not a case where the appellant lured respondent No.2 solely for physical pleasures and then vanished. The relationship continued for a period of three long years, which is a considerable period of time. They remained close and emotionally involved. In such cases, physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage.”

The Bench remarked that to convert every sour 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 and calls for condemnation”, it added.

AOR Sneha Sanjay Botwe represented the Appellant/Accused, while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande represented the Respondent/State. AOR Radhika Gautham was appointed as the Amicus Curiae for the Respondent/Complainant.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the Respondent-Complainant had lodged a complaint stating that she was married to a person in 2019 and had a minor daughter out of the said wedlock. However, due to matrimonial discord with her husband and in-laws, she had been residing separately since May 2020 and was living with her parents. In July 2020, she had filed a complaint against her husband, however, owing to the failure of reconciliation between them, she initiated proceedings against her husband seeking alimony/maintenance from him. It is in connection with the said proceedings that she was introduced to the Appellant-accused, who was a practising Advocate in Aurangabad. Later, the Appellant took Complainant’s contact number and the two regularly kept in touch on WhatsApp and through phone calls. Over a period of time, both developed a close relationship. It was then that the Appellant proposed to meet the Complainant in person at Vivekananda Garden in TV Centre.

During the course of their meeting, he expressed his desire to marry her, however, owing to her troubled marital past, she declined the proposal. Despite her reluctance, he continued to insist on marriage at each subsequent meeting. In March 2022, he called her to a hotel where he once again expressed his desire to marry her and assured her that he would marry her despite her concern that his mother might not approve of the alliance. Based on such assurance, he allegedly established physical relations with her. The Complainant got pregnant two times and both the pregnancies were terminated. The sexual relations between them continued and in May 2024, when the Complainant insisted on marriage, the Appellant allegedly refused to marry her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anybody. Hence, an FIR was registered against him under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, said, “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.”

The Court noted that it is not uncommon for a woman to repose complete faith in her partner and to consent to physical intimacy on the assurance that such a relationship would culminate in a lawful and socially recognised marriage.

“In such circumstances, the promise of marriage becomes the very foundation of her consent, rendering it conditional rather than absolute. It is, thus, conceivable that such consent may stand vitiated where it is established that the promise of marriage was illusory, made in bad faith, and with no genuine intention of fulfilment, solely to exploit the woman”, it added.

The Court emphasised that the law must remain sensitive to such genuine cases where trust has been breached and dignity violated, lest the protective scope of Section 376 of the IPC be reduced to a mere formality for those truly aggrieved and at the same time, the invocation of this principle must rest upon credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral conjecture.

“Upon a careful consideration of the record in the present case, we are unable to discern any material that would warrant the invocation of Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The facts of the present case unmistakably indicate that it is a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious”, it observed.

The Court further noted that the FIR is conspicuously silent as to any specific allegation that the Appellant had either forcibly taken or compelled the Complainant to accompany him to the hotel, nor does it disclose any circumstance suggesting deceit or inducement on the part of the Appellant to procure her presence there.

“Therefore, the only logical inference that emerges is that respondent No.2, of her own volition, visited and met the appellant on each occasion. It is also borne out from the record that whenever the appellant brought up the subject of marriage, respondent No.2 herself opposed the proposal. In such circumstances, the contention of respondent No.2 that the physical relationship between the parties was premised upon any assurance of marriage by the appellant is devoid of merit and stands unsustainable”, it held.

The Court was of the view that the relationship between the parties was consensual, and therefore, the absence of an express statement to that effect in the memo of Application, as emphasised in the impugned Order, cannot be held against the Appellant when the same can be otherwise clearly discerned.

Conclusion

The Court refused to concur with the findings of the High Court, saying that the case pertains to a consensual relationship, and the acts of the Complainant manifest consent to such a relationship devoid of any coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation as contemplated in Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA).

“In our opinion, the High Court’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS is unsustainable. The acts complained of in the present case occurred within the contours of a relationship that was, at the time, voluntary and willing. The continuation of the prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of an abuse of the court machinery”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Order, and quashed the FIR.

Cause Title- Samadhan v. State of Maharashtra & Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1351)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Sneha Sanjay Botwe, Advocates Bharat S. Doifode, Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Akash Tripathi, and Ashraf Patel.

Respondents: AORs Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Radhika Gautham, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Shrirang B. Varma, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, and Chitransha Singh Sikarwar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment