Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Ravish Singh Rana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2025 (@ Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No. 2776 of 2025)
Decided On : 28-04-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Rape, hurt, insult and criminal intimidation - Live-in relationship - Quashing petition - Relationship was not merely of knowing each other but of living together as a couple under one roof in a rented accommodation - FIR does not allege that physical relationship was established only because there was a promise of marriage - Besides, physical relationship continued for over two years without complaint in between - In such circumstances, presumption would arise of there being a valid consent for initiating and maintaining physical relationship that spanned over two years - Long-drawn relationship of appellant and respondent including circumstance of their living together and cohabiting with each other, that too, in a separate rented accommodation, would give rise to a presumption that their relationship was based on a valid consent - Settlement agreement points out that parties had been in love - In such circumstances, on ground of refusal to marry, appellant cannot be subjected to prosecution for offence of rape - When a matter of this nature comes to Court, it must not adopt a pedantic approach rather Court may, based on length of such relationship and conduct of parties, presume implied consent of parties to be in such a relationship regardless of their desire or a wish to convert it into a marital bond - Other allegations of assault and abuse have not been supported by any material particulars - Impugned FIR and consequential proceedings quashed. (Paras 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal impugns judgment and order of High Court of Uttarakhand, dated 11.12.2024, by which Criminal Misc. Application filed by appellant for quashing FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, including cognizance order under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, has been dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Result : Appeal allowed.
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand1[High Court], dated 11.12.2024, by which Criminal Misc. Application No. 922 of 2024 filed by the appellant for quashing FIR No. 482 of 2023 and proceedings arising therefrom, including the cognizance order dated 13.02.2024, has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as follows:
(i) The second respondent lodged a First Information Report2[FIR] at Police Station3[PS] Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar on 23.11.2023 against the appellant, inter-alia, alleging that on 06.02.2021, the informant got introduced to the appellant through Facebook; after introduction, they began a live-in relationship; during this period the appellant rented a room at Khatima and established physical relationship many times with a promise to marry the informant; physical relationship continued though at times informant was abused and beaten; later, when the informant insisted on marriage, the appellant refused to marry and instead threatened the informant; and forcibly established physical relationship on 18.11.2023.
(ii) The aforesaid FIR was registered under Sections 376, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604[IPC].
(iii) To quash the aforesaid FIR and the consequential proceedings, the appellant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.922 of 2024 before the High Court by invoking its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20235[BNSS], (equivalent to section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736[CrPC]).
(iv) In the aforesaid application, the appellant, inter alia, stated that admittedly both parties were adults; they lived together under one roof for over two years; during this period, they had physical relationship voluntarily; and, later, they codified an agreement/settlement on 19.11.2023. Thus, the allegations are nothing but mala fide, concocted with a view to blackmail the appellant and his family. Moreover, those allegations have no support from any injury/ medical report. And, in any case, an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC is not made out.
(v) The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence and, therefore, the same cannot be quashed.
(vi) Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant is in appeal before us.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vanshaja Shukla for the respondents.
Submissions on behalf of appellant
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that admittedly the parties have executed a settlement deed on 19.11.2023, which reads as under:
“The agreement has been made today 19.11.2023 between the first party (name and address of the second respondent) and the second party (name and address of the appellant). On the advice of the respected persons with the condition that both are living together since 12th August so we must conduct Mangbhari and live like husband and wife in the room and we would hand over our papers today to the Advocate to register their marriage and they would get the registration done going to the Court. If the second party violates the agreement, the legal action can be taken against us. We both the parties know each other since February, 2021. We love each other.”
6. Based on the aforesaid settlement, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the allegation that appellant forcibly established physical relationship with the informant on 18.11.2023 is palpably false. Had it been so, the settlement agreement, which was entered on 19.11.2023, would not have stated that parties love each other. This settlement clearly establishes that till 19.11.2023 there was no untoward incident, and the parties were in love with each other.
7. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the High Court overlooked this settlement agreement, as a result grave injustice has been caused to
Rape - Live-in relationship - On the ground of refusal to marry, accused cannot be subjected to prosecution for offence of rape.
Prolonged consensual relationships cannot be criminalized for alleging false promises of marriage; consent under mistaken beliefs must be properly substantiated.
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – High Court does not have to go in detail by way of minute examination about correctness or otherwise of facts alleged – Court has to examine the same by taking....
Consent in a sexual relationship negates allegations of rape when no coercion or misrepresentation is found, even in instances of promises of marriage.
Consensual relationships cannot be classified as rape simply due to a breach of promise to marry; criminal liability requires clear evidence of bad faith or deceit by the accused.
Consent in sexual offences cannot be deemed vitiated unless the promise to marry was false at inception and intended to deceive, which was not established in this case.
The court established that consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not automatically constitute rape without evidence of mala fide intent.
A breach of promise to marry does not constitute rape unless it can be proven that the promise was made with intent to deceive from the outset.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
