Prosecutrix Was In Relationship With Accused While Being In Subsisting Marriage: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case

The appellant-accused approached the Apex Court challenging the impugned Order passed by the Delhi High Court whereby the Order discharging the Appellant in a case registered under sections 376, 506 of the IPC was set aside.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, “There is also no element of criminality that can be accrued to the Appellant, insofar as it is the own case of the prosecutrix, that she was in a relationship with the Appellant, while being in a subsisting marriage. It is also hard to believe that the prosecutrix could have sustained a physical relationship for a prolonged period of five years while being in a subsisting marriage, and even subsequently obtaining a divorce to sustain the relationship. The prolonged period of the relationship, during which the sexual relations continued between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship.”

Advocate Shekhar Nanavaty represented the Appellant while ASG Archana Pathak Dave represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The FIR came to be registered at the behest of the Complainant/Second Respondent alleging that the Appellant had established physical relations with her, with the promise to marry her and take care of her two children. The Complaint revealed that the Appellant was known to the prosecutrix since 2011, before their respective marriages. Their love was rekindled in 2016, once their matrimonial lives became unsettled. It was the case of the Complainant that she was in a relationship with the Appellant since 2016, who was living in Canada at the time, and had come to India, and met her for the first time in 2017. He met the Complainant at his brother’s rental house and established a physical relationship with her on the promise that he would marry her after obtaining a divorce from his first wife.

The Appellant lived with the Complainant at her house for 25 days, where he allegedly sexually harassed her. The Complainant obtained a divorce from her husband in 2019, on the assurance from the Appellant that he would marry her; however, he refused to do the same and even threatened to kill her children. Subsequently, the FIR came to be registered. The Appellant was discharged by the Sessions Court but the complainant’s Revision Petition was allowed by the High Court, and his discharge was set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, reaffirmed, “It has been time and again settled by this Hon’ble Court, that the mere fact that physical relations were established pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to a rape in every case. An offence under Section 375 IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by the accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from the very beginning, and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on the prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the physical relationship between the Appellant and the complainant was consensual from the very beginning and couldn’t be said to be against the will or without the consent of the prosecutrix. There was no material on record to show that there was any dishonest inducement or incitement on the part of the Appellant. “The Mangalsutra being prepared with the initials of the name of the Complainant/Respondent no.2 does reflect his intention and promise to marry. However, in the eventuality of a fall-out or split between the parties, it cannot be said that the promise to marry was false, and the corresponding conduct dishonest”, it said.

The Bench found no element of criminality that could be accrued to the Appellant, insofar as it was the own case of the prosecutrix that she was in a relationship with the Appellant while being in a subsisting marriage. “The prolonged period of the relationship, during which the sexual relations continued between the parties, is sufficient to conclude that there was never an element of force or deceit in the relationship. The prosecutrix was thus, conscious and cognizant of the consequences of her actions, and had given her consent after an active and reasoned deliberation”, it added.

The Bench affirmed the order of the Sessions Court in discharging the accused as no offence under sections 375 and 506 IPC was made out. It also reiterated that at the time of framing of charge, a mini-trial is not permissible. Considering that the High Court undertook an exhaustive analysis of the allegations in the FIR, the Bench held that at the stage of framing of charges, the court must only adjudicate based on material on record as the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench terminated the criminal proceedings against the Appellant.

Cause Title: Jaspal Singh Kaural v. The State of Nct of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 457)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Shekhar Nanavaty, Jitesh Kumar Singh, Shikha Gupta, Shubham Dhyani, AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Respondent: ASG Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Samridhi Arora, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Navin Kumar, Shagun Thakur, Sudhakar Kulwant, Astha Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment