1. Sexual relationship between an advocate and a married woman — Allegation of rape based on false promise of marriage — Application for quashing FIR under Section 528, BNSS. (Para 2 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1969
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Samadhan S/O Sitatram Manmothe – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharasthra & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.5001 of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6906 of 2025)
Decided On : 24-11-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR Mr. Bharat S. Doifode, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Akash Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Patel, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR Mr. Bharat S. Doifode, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Mr. Akash Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Ashraf Patel, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Rape – Offence of rape, being of gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent – To convert every sour relationship into offence of rape not only trivialises seriousness of offence but also inflicts upon accused indelible stigma and grave injustice.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482] – Rape – Refusal to quash proceedings – Present case is not a case where appellant lured respondent solely for physical pleasures and then vanished – 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 course of a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as instances of offence of rape merely because relationship failed to culminate in marriage – Offence of rape, being of gravest kind, must be invoked only in cases where there exists genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent – To convert every sour relationship into offence of rape not only trivialises seriousness of offence but also inflicts upon accused indelible stigma and grave injustice – Such instances transcend realm of mere personal discord – Misuse of criminal justice machinery in this regard is a matter of profound concern and calls for condemnation. (Paras 28 and 29)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482] – Rape – Refusal to quash proceedings – Institution of marriage holds deep social and cultural significance – It is not uncommon for a woman to repose complete faith in her partner and to consent to physical intimacy on assurance that such a relationship would culminate in a lawful and socially recognised marriage – In such circumstances, promise of marriage becomes very foundation of her consent, rendering it conditional rather than absolute – It is conceivable that such consent may stand vitiated where it is established that promise of marriage was illusory, made in bad faith, and with no genuine intention of fulfilment, solely to exploit the woman – Law must remain sensitive to such genuine cases where trust has been breached and dignity violated, lest protective scope of Section 376 of IPC be reduced to a mere formality for those truly aggrieved – At the same time, invocation of this principle must rest upon credible evidence and concrete facts, and not on unsubstantiated allegations or moral conjecture – This is a classic instance of a consensual relationship having subsequently turned acrimonious – FIR is conspicuously silent as to any specific allegation that appellant had either forcibly taken or compelled respondent to accompany him to hotel, nor does it disclose any circumstance suggesting deceit or inducement on part of appellant to procure her presence there – Relationship between parties was consensual, and absence of express statement to that effect in memo of application, as emphasised in impugned order, cannot be held against appellant when same can be otherwise clearly discerned – Continuation of prosecution in such facts would be nothing short of abuse of court machinery – Impugned judgment and order of High Court quashed. (Paras 31, 32, 34, 37, 40 and 41)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by order dated 06.03.2025 passed by Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 601 of 2025 dismissing application filed by appellant under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
FIR No. 294 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024, registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of IPC and Chargesheet No. 143 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024, filed in the Court of the 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad, accordingly stands quashed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims consensual relationship and false implication due to monetary dispute — State contends allegations disclose cognizable offence requiring trial to determine veracity of consent. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Long-term physical intimacy in a functioning relationship cannot be retrospectively branded as rape — Consent of an educated adult in a voluntary relationship is not vitiated by failed marriage. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
4. A long-term consensual relationship between adults does not constitute rape unless the promise of marriage was illusory from the inception to deceive and procure consent. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 38 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned High Court order set aside — FIR and charge-sheet quashed. (Para 40 , 41 )
6. What is the distinction between a false promise to marry and a breach of promise in rape allegations?
A false promise amounts to a misconception of fact if made from the inception with an intention to deceive to persuade a woman to have a physical relationship. A mere breach of a promise to marry, due to unforeseen circumstances or failure to fulfill it later, does not necessarily vitiate consent. (Para 27 , 38 )
7. Can a long-term consensual relationship be retrospectively treated as rape if it does not culminate in marriage?
No. Physical intimacy that occurred during the course of a functioning, long-term relationship between consenting adults cannot be retrospectively branded as rape merely because the relationship failed to culminate in marriage, provided there was no genuine sexual violence, coercion, or absence of free consent. (Para 28 , 30 , 32 )
8. What constitutes the offence of repeated rape under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC?
Section 376(2)(n) addresses aggravated sexual assault where the offence is not a single incident but occurs repeatedly on the same victim. This contemplates a series of separate acts of sexual assault committed at different points in time, rather than a continuation of a single transaction. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
9. When is it appropriate to quash an FIR and charge-sheet in cases of alleged rape based on a promise of marriage?
Quashing is appropriate under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) when the allegations in the FIR and accompanying materials, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or disclose a cognizable offence, such as when the record clearly indicates a consensual relationship. (Para 39 , 40 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 601 of 2025 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking quashing of FIR No. 294 of 2024, registered with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City on 31.08.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”), the appellant is before this Court.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.1-State and learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Radhika Gautham, for respondent No.2 as the latter has not responded to the notice issued and served on her.
4. Briefly stated the facts of this case as per the prosecution are that respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint with City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City, stating that she was married to a person ABC in the year 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 at Rajangaon, Taluka Paithan, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
5. In July 2020, respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against her husband at the Women’s Grievance Redressal Centre, Office of Superintendent of Police, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar. However, owing to the failure of reconciliation between them, respondent No.2 initiated proceedings against her husband seeking alimony/ maintenance from him.
6. It is in connection with the said proceedings that respondent No.2, on 27.01.2022, was introduced to the appellant, who is a practising advocate in the courts of Aurangabad. Later, appellant took respondent No.2’s contact number and the two regularly kept in touch on WhatsApp and through phone calls. Over a period of time, the appellant and respondent No.2 developed a close relationship. It was then that the appellant proposed to meet respondent No.2 in person at Vivekananda Garden in TV Centre. During the course of their meeting, the appellant expressed his desire to marry respondent No.2. However, owing to her troubled marital past, respondent No.2 declined the proposal. Despite her reluctance, the appellant continued to insist on marriage at each subsequent meeting.
7. On 12.03.2022, the appellant called respondent No.2 to Hotel Citizen, near Mill Corner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, 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, the appellant established physical relations with her.
8. Subsequently, in September 2022, the complainant discovered that she was pregnant with the appellant’s child. However, with the consent of the appellant, she aborted the child. Thereafter, when respondent No.2 decided to part ways with the appellant, he continued to assure her of marriage and engaged in further sexual relations with her, as a result of which she got pregnant again in July 2023 and later in May 2024. Both the pregnancies were terminated.
9. On 20.05.2024, the appellant once again called respondent No.2 to Hotel Citizen, where he engaged in physical acts with her. Later, when respondent No.2 insisted on marriage, the appellant flatly refused to marry her and further threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to anybody.
10. Based on the aforesaid facts, FIR No. 294 of 2024 dated 31.08.2024 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 of the IPC at City Chowk Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar City.
11. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an anticipatory bail application bearing Criminal Bail Application No. 1841 of 2024 before the Additional Sessions Judge,
