Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Pramod Kumar Navratna – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4452 of 2025)
Decided On : 05-02-2026
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Refusal to quash proceedings – Mere fact that parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case – Offence under Section 375 of IPC could only be made out, if promise of marriage was made by accused solely with a view to obtain consent for sexual relations without having any intent of fulfilling said promise from very beginning and that such false promise of marriage had a direct bearing on prosecutrix giving her consent for sexual relations – It is a classic case of consensual relationship turning acrimonious – Law prohibits bigamous unions and disallows parties from entering into second marriage during subsistence of their first marriage – Complainant is herself an Advocate and she should have exercised her prudence and discretion before engaging already burdened State machinery into a roving criminal litigation-=Facts of present case clearly indicate a consensual relationship gone sour whereas both parties should have exercised restraint and should have refrained from involving State into their personal relationship turning rancourous. (Paras 18, 19, 20 and 24)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Refusal to quash proceedings – 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 soured 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 for Judiciary already facing a heavy load and calls for condemnation – Allegation of rape on false pretext of marriage even when taken on its face value, does not amount to offence of rape and not liable for punishment under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC in instant case – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 25, 27 and 28)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises out of order dated 03.03.2025 passed by High Court for State of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPCR No.117/2025 dismissing Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India preferred by accused-appellant herein and thereby refusing to quash proceedings arising out of FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered at Sarkanda Police Station, District Bilaspur under Section 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
It is neither expedient nor in interest of justice to permit present prosecution emanating from FIR and consequent Sessions Case No.89/2025 to continue.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the High Court for the State of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in WPCR No.117/2025 dismissing the Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India preferred by the accused-appellant herein and thereby refusing to quash the proceedings arising out of the FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered at Sarkanda Police Station, District Bilaspur under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) that was registered by the complainant-respondent No.3.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant- respondent No.3, an Advocate by profession, solemnized marriage with one Mitendra Kumar Dhirde on 02.06.2011 and subsequently gave birth to a boy named Ojash on 12.04.2012. Thereafter, owing to matrimonial discord between the couple, the husband sought divorce by filing the divorce petition Civil Case No.F/232A/2018 against the complainant-respondent No.3 on 10.12.2018 under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. The contentions and grievances of the parties in the said divorce petition are not germane to the facts of the present case and hence are not dealt with herein. Suffice it to say that the said divorce petition was dismissed by the Family Court on 27.11.2024 and an appeal No.FA(MAT)/11/2025 against the said order was preferred by the husband of the complainant- respondent No.3 on 10.01.2025 which is currently pending adjudication before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Therefore, at the time of disposal of the present petition, the complainant-respondent No.3 is married and has a son.
4. It is stated that on 18.09.2022, the complainant-respondent No.3 had come into contact with the accused-appellant who is also an Advocate by profession, at a social event wherein both developed a mutual liking and fondness for each other and thereafter stayed in contact with each other.
5. On 06.02.2025, the complainant-respondent No.3 lodged an FIR No.213/2025 dated 06.02.2025 at Police Station Sarkanda at District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC against the accused-appellant alleging that he had raped her on a false promise of marriage. The allegations against the accused- appellant contained in the said FIR can be crystallised as hereunder:
ii. On 18.09.2022, while going to a Mahan Bada Jarhabhata meeting, the accused-appellant took the complainant- respondent No.3 to his friend’s house in Geetanjali Phase- 02, Sarkanda on the pretext of picking up some of his essential documents from the said location.
iii. Thereafter, in the guise of seeking help from the complainant-respondent No.3, the accused-appellant raped her. Upon protest and threat of lodgement of police complaint, the accused-appellant told the complainant- respondent No.3 that he likes her and wants to marry her and thereafter he proceeded to apply vermilion on her head.
iv. Subsequently, on different occasions the accused- appellant indulged in physical relations with the complainant-respondent No.3 whilst he kept verbally assuring her that he will marry her and meet and talk to her family about the same.
v. Thereafter, the complainant-respondent No.3 informed the accused-appellant that she was pregnant with his child. Upon hearing the said information, he became evasive about the topic of marriage and said that he was neither ready for a social marriage nor f
(1) Rape – Sexual intercourse on false promise of marriage – Mere fact that parties indulged in physical relations pursuant to a promise to marry will not amount to rape in every case.(2) Rape – Offe....
Consensual sexual relationships do not constitute rape even if they are based on a promise of marriage that was not fulfilled, unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent.
Section 375 of IPC states that a man is said to commit rape if he has had any form of sexual intercourse without consent of a woman.
Consent obtained under a false promise of marriage does not constitute rape if the accused had no intention to deceive at the time of the promise.
(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....
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.
The distinction between consensual relationships and rape allegations is critical; failure to fulfill a marriage promise alone does not constitute rape absent of proof of bad faith or coercion.
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
